Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T06:00:29.496Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Reply to Professor Johnson

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 April 2015

Marci A. Hamilton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Law and Religion , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , 2007 , pp. 397 - 399
Copyright
Copyright © Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Hamilton, Marci A., God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law (Cambridge U. Press 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See William Stacy Johnson, Book Review, Hamilton, Marci A., God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law, 22 J.L. & Religion 287 (2006–2007)Google Scholar.

2. 374 U.S. 398 (1963).

3. 494 U.S. 872 (1990).

4. 406 U.S. 205 (1972).

5. Johnson, supra n. 1. He goes on to make the point that Congress overrode his reading of Smith through an “overwhelming vote” in favor of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Id. at 288. This is not the place to get into the depths of the RFRA legislative history, but Professor Johnson's claim perpetuates one of the myths surrounding RFRA. In truth, the House of Representatives enacted RFRA under its “unanimous consent” rule, which means few members were required to be present and no roll call taken.

6. 546 U.S. 418 (2006).

7. 544 U.S. 709 (2005).

8. Johnson, supra n. 1, at 289.