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

Crawford v. Washington: A Ten Year Retrospective

No one disputes the significance of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), which fundamentally transformed Confrontation...

Come Back to the Boat, Justice Breyer!

I want to get Justice Breyer back on the right side of Confrontation Clause issues. In 1999, in Lilly...

Crawford v. Washington: The Next Ten Years

Imagine a world . . . in which the Supreme Court got it right the first time. That is,...

The Crawford Debacle

First a toast-to my colleague Jeff Fisher and his Crawford compatriot, Richard Friedman, on the...

Confrontation and the Re-Privatization of Domestic Violence

When the Supreme Court transformed the right of confrontation in Crawford v. Washington, the prosecution...
MAILING LIST
Sign Up to Join Our Mailing List