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

Writing Competition Panel Audio Recording

On Tuesday, April 4, members of the Michigan Law Review discussed the 2012 writing competition and the...

Agency and Equity: Why Do We Blame Clients for Their Lawyers' Mistakes?

If you were to ask a child whether it would be fair to execute a prisoner because his lawyer had made...

How United States v. Jones Can Restore Our Faith in the Fourth Amendment

United States v. Jones, issued in January of this year, is a landmark case that has the potential to restore...

Who's Bringing the Children?: Expanding the Family Exemption for Child Smuggling Offenses

Under immigration law, an alien smuggling offense takes place when one knowingly encourages, induces,...

How the Gun-Free School Zones Act Saved the Individual Mandate

  For all the drama surrounding the Commerce Clause challenge to the individual mandate provision...
MAILING LIST
Sign Up to Join Our Mailing List