|
|
Article: How not to challenge the Court. (U.S. Supreme Court)(Symposium: Reflections on City of Boerne v. Flores)
- Article from:
- William and Mary Law Review
- Article date:
- February 1, 1998
- Author:
CopyrightCOPYRIGHT 1998 College of William and Mary, Marshall Wythe School of Law. This material is published under license from the publisher through the Gale Group, Farmington Hills, Michigan. All inquiries regarding rights should be directed to the Gale Group. (Hide copyright information)
|
Congress should have known better, so should the Clinton White House. By requiring a compelling justification for governmental conduct burdensome of religion and thereby "overturning" Employment Division v. Smith,(1) Congress and the White House--through the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)(2)--backed the Court into a corner. Specifically, because RFRA called for "the most demanding test known to constitutional law,"(3) Congress limited the Court's role in defining the parameters of First Amendment religious liberty protections to clarifying ambiguous language in RFRA, rather than actually interpreting the Constitution. Adding insult to injury, lawmakers ...