运动自由的平等保护:两种途径及其历史

Bernadette A. Meyler
{"title":"运动自由的平等保护:两种途径及其历史","authors":"Bernadette A. Meyler","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.796288","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Contrary to critics of the Supreme Court's current equal protection approach to religious liberty, this Article contends that, from the very first federal free exercise cases, the Equal Protection and Free Exercise Clauses have been mutually imbricated. The seeds of an equal protection analysis of free exercise were, indeed, planted even before the Fourteenth Amendment within the constitutional jurisprudence of the several states. Nor, this Article argues, should equal protection approaches be uniformly disparaged. Rather, the drawbacks that commentators have observed result largely from the Supreme Court's application of an inadequate version of equal protection that ignores the lessons that the Fourteenth Amendment taught about the nature of group classification and instead, by emphasizing the individual in isolation, downplays her free exercise claims. Considering this tendency within the context of current theories of group rights and antidiscrimination law, the Article concludes that we should resuscitate the now neglected, alternative strand of an equal protection approach to free exercise.","PeriodicalId":80721,"journal":{"name":"Boston College law review. Boston College. Law School","volume":"65 1","pages":"275"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Equal Protection of Free Exercise: Two Approaches and their History\",\"authors\":\"Bernadette A. Meyler\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.796288\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Contrary to critics of the Supreme Court's current equal protection approach to religious liberty, this Article contends that, from the very first federal free exercise cases, the Equal Protection and Free Exercise Clauses have been mutually imbricated. The seeds of an equal protection analysis of free exercise were, indeed, planted even before the Fourteenth Amendment within the constitutional jurisprudence of the several states. Nor, this Article argues, should equal protection approaches be uniformly disparaged. Rather, the drawbacks that commentators have observed result largely from the Supreme Court's application of an inadequate version of equal protection that ignores the lessons that the Fourteenth Amendment taught about the nature of group classification and instead, by emphasizing the individual in isolation, downplays her free exercise claims. Considering this tendency within the context of current theories of group rights and antidiscrimination law, the Article concludes that we should resuscitate the now neglected, alternative strand of an equal protection approach to free exercise.\",\"PeriodicalId\":80721,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Boston College law review. Boston College. Law School\",\"volume\":\"65 1\",\"pages\":\"275\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2005-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Boston College law review. Boston College. Law School\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.796288\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Boston College law review. Boston College. Law School","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.796288","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

与对最高法院目前对宗教自由的平等保护方法的批评者相反,本条认为,从最初的联邦自由行使案件开始,平等保护条款和自由行使条款就相互交织在一起。事实上,甚至在第十四修正案出台之前,就已经在几个州的宪法判例中播下了对自由行使的平等保护分析的种子。本文认为,平等保护方法也不应被一概贬低。相反,评论家们观察到的缺陷主要是由于最高法院对平等保护的应用不充分,忽视了第十四修正案关于群体分类的本质的教训,相反,通过强调孤立的个人,淡化了她的自由行使要求。在当前群体权利理论和反歧视法的背景下,考虑到这一趋势,文章得出结论,我们应该复兴现在被忽视的平等保护自由行使途径的另一股。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Equal Protection of Free Exercise: Two Approaches and their History
Contrary to critics of the Supreme Court's current equal protection approach to religious liberty, this Article contends that, from the very first federal free exercise cases, the Equal Protection and Free Exercise Clauses have been mutually imbricated. The seeds of an equal protection analysis of free exercise were, indeed, planted even before the Fourteenth Amendment within the constitutional jurisprudence of the several states. Nor, this Article argues, should equal protection approaches be uniformly disparaged. Rather, the drawbacks that commentators have observed result largely from the Supreme Court's application of an inadequate version of equal protection that ignores the lessons that the Fourteenth Amendment taught about the nature of group classification and instead, by emphasizing the individual in isolation, downplays her free exercise claims. Considering this tendency within the context of current theories of group rights and antidiscrimination law, the Article concludes that we should resuscitate the now neglected, alternative strand of an equal protection approach to free exercise.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信