Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:43:22.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

FREE EXERCISE EXEMPTIONISM AND THE EVAPORATION OF THE INALIENABLE CHARACTER OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY - The Distinctiveness of Religion in American Law: Rethinking Religion Clause Jurisprudence. By Kathleen A. Brady. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Pp. 354. $39.99 (paper). ISBN: 978-1107016507.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2018

Vincent Phillip Muñoz
Vincent Phillip Muñoz*
Affiliation:
Tocqueville Associate Professor of Political Science, Concurrent Associate Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Keywords

religion clausesfree exerciseestablishmentneutrality
Type
Book Review Roundtable
Information
Journal of Law and Religion , Volume 32 , Issue 3 , November 2017 , pp. 512 - 514
Copyright
Copyright © Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

31 Balkin, Jack M., Living Originalism (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 McConnell, Michael W., “The Origins and Historical Understanding of Free Exercise of Religion,” Harvard Law Review 103, no. 7 (1990): 1409–1517CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McConnell, Michael W., “Free Exercise Revisionism and the Smith Decision,” University of Chicago Law Review 57, no. 4 (1990): 1109–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 See Muñoz, Vincent Phillip, “The Original Meaning of the Free Exercise Clause: The Evidence from the First Congress,” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 31, no. 3 (2008): 1083–1120Google Scholar; Hamburger, Philip, “A Constitutional Right of Religious Exemption: An Historical Perspective,” George Washington Law Review 60, no. 4 (1992): 915–48Google Scholar; Bradley, “Beguiled.”

34 For further discussion of this point, see Muñoz, Vincent Phillip, “Church and State in the Founding-Era State Constitutions,” American Political Thought 4, no. 1 (2015): 1–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Muñoz, “The Original Meaning of the Free Exercise Clause.”

35 Muñoz, Vincent Phillip, “If Religious Liberty Does Not Mean Exemptions, What Might It Mean? The Founders' Constitutionalism of the Inalienable Rights of Religious Liberty,” Notre Dame Law Review 91, no. 4 (2016): 1387–417Google Scholar.

36 Kurland, Philip B. and Lerner, Ralph, The Founders' Constitution, reprint ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000)Google Scholar. The full text is now available online at http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/. For the Delaware Declaration of Rights and Fundamental Rules (1776), see Amendment I (Religion), Document 26. For the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776, see Amendment I (Religion), Document 30. For the Vermont Constitution of 1777, see Amendment I (Religion), Document 35. In the print version of the The Founders' Constitution, Amendment I is located in Volume 5.

37 Muñoz, Vincent Phillip, “Two Concepts of Religious Liberty: The Natural Rights and Moral Autonomy Approaches to the Free Exercise of Religion,” American Political Science Review 110, no. 2, (2016): 369–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 373.