Show simple item record

RFRA-Vote Gambling: Why Paulsen is Wrong, As Usual

dc.contributor.authorSherry, Suzanna
dc.identifier.citation14 Const. Comment. 27 (1997)en_US
dc.descriptionarticle published in law journalen_US
dc.description.abstractSupreme Court currents are no less treacherous to navigators than are river currents-and, as Michael Paulsen himself has previously pointed out, RFRA shares more than a linguistic resonance with a river.1 Unfortunately, this time Paulsen has let himself be fooled by the prevailing political winds into believing that there will be smooth sailing for his favorite statute despite the swirling eddies ahead. He is altogether too confident of a favorable result. Although I have no wagers, public or private (and I am shocked-shocked!-to find gambling in this establishment) on the outcome of Boeme v. Flores, I want to use my editorial prerogative to take issue with my colleague's predictions. Indeed, he seems to have things exactly backward.en_US
dc.format.extent1 PDF (7 pages)en_US
dc.publisherConstitutional Commentaryen_US
dc.subject.lcshPaulsen, Michael Stokesen_US
dc.subject.lcshUnited States. Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993en_US
dc.subject.lcshUnited States. Supreme Courten_US
dc.titleRFRA-Vote Gambling: Why Paulsen is Wrong, As Usualen_US

Files in this item


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record