Not available to order
Publication date:
10 July 2012Length of book:
250 pagesPublisher
Lexington BooksISBN-13: 9780739146798
The First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution begins: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ." The Supreme Court has consistently held that these words, usually called the "religion clauses," were meant to prohibit laws that violate religious freedom or equality. In recent years, however, a growing number of constitutional law and history scholars have contended that the religion clauses were not intended to protect religious freedom, but to reserve the states' rights to legislate on. If the states' rights interpretation of the religion clauses were correct and came to be accepted by the Supreme Court, it could profoundly affect the way the Court decides church-state cases involving state laws. It would allow the states to legislate on religion-even to violate religious freedom, discriminate on the basis of religion, or to establish a particular religion. This book carefully, thoroughly, and critically examines all the arguments for such an interpretation and, more importantly, all the available historical evidence. It concludes that the clauses were meant to protect religious freedom and equality of the individuals not the states' rights
West (emer., Univ. of Richmond) tackles the issue of whether the free exercise and establishment clauses of the First Amendment to the US Constitution have any real meaning or whether they merely leave to the states, as opposed to the federal government, the authority to regulate religious activity (i.e., the jurisdictional interpretation). That this seems even in doubt is odd to those who have studied the clauses and the jurisprudence around them. Nonetheless, the author takes on the logic for the jurisdictional interpretation, as opposed to the substantive interpretation of the religion clauses, and examines the historical evidence, including the views of the Federalist and anti-Federalist, presented by its defenders. Ultimately he concludes that there is very little historical evidence to support the jurisdictional interpretation. Highly recommended for scholars and advanced students of public law. Summing Up: Highly recommended.