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

Rethinking Reporter's Privilege

Forty years ago, in Branzburg v. Hayes, the Supreme Court made its first and only inquiry into...

Standing's Expected Value

This Article argues in favor of standing based on expected value of harm. Standing doctrine has been...

Counsel's Control over the Presentation of Mitigating Evidence During Capital Sentencing

The Sixth Amendment gives a defendant the right to control his defense and the right to a lawyer's...

Law-Enforcement Officers and Self-Help Repossession: A State-Action Approach

Repossession of secured collateral is a fundamental component of the consumer credit industry. The...

Doing Affirmative Action

Sometime this year the Supreme Court will announce its holding in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, a...
MAILING LIST
Sign Up to Join Our Mailing List