April 2007 Vol. 105 No. 6 THE REVIEW

A Response to Professor Laycock

Marci A. Hamilton

Almost a hundred years ago, the American Association of University Professors established guidelines for civility among scholars, saying that academic exchanges “should be set forth with dignity, courtesy, and temperateness of language.” I agree wholeheartedly with these principles, and I will not succumb to the temptation to respond in kind to Professor Laycock’s review. Tone is much less important than having a frank exchange of views.

It is well known that Professor Laycock and I have very different perspectives on the proper interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause. His review and my response should be an opportunity for us to explore our intellectual differences.

   //  VIEW PDF
& Other Current Events

Speedy Trial as a Viable Challenge to Chronic Underfunding in Indigent-Defense Systems

Across the country, underresourced indigent-defense systems create delays in taking cases to trial...

A Blended Approach to Reducing the Costs of Shareholder Litigation

Multiforum litigation and federal securities law class actions impose heavy costs on corporations and...

The Scope of Precedent

The scope of Supreme Court precedent is capacious. Justices of the Court commonly defer to sweeping rationales...

Reinventing Copyright and Patent

Intellectual property systems all over the world are modeled on a one-size-fits-all principle. However...

Protecting Whistleblower Protections in the Dodd-Frank Act

In 2008, the United States fell into its worst economic recession in over seventy years. In response,...
MAILING LIST
Sign Up to Join Our Mailing List