Cantitate/Preț
Produs

Free Exercise of Religion and the United States Constitution: The Supreme Court’s Challenge: ICLARS Series on Law and Religion

Autor Mark P. Strasser
en Limba Engleză Paperback – 11 noi 2019
The United States is extremely diverse religiously and, not infrequently, individuals sincerely contend that they are unable to act in accord with law as a matter of conscience. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the free exercise of religion and the United States Supreme Court has issued many decisions exploring the depth and breadth of those protections. This book addresses the Court’s free exercise jurisprudence, discussing what counts as religion and the protections that have been afforded to a variety of religious practices. Regrettably, the Court has not offered a principled and consistent account of which religious practices are protected or even how to decide whether a particular practice is protected, which has resulted in similar cases being treated dissimilarly. Further, the Court’s free exercise jurisprudence has been used to provide guidance in interpreting federal statutory protections, which is making matters even more chaotic.
This book attempts to clarify what the Court has said in the hopes that it will contribute to the development of a more consistent and principled jurisprudence that respects the rights of the religious and the non-religious.
Citește tot Restrânge

Toate formatele și edițiile

Toate formatele și edițiile Preț Express
Paperback (1) 25667 lei  43-57 zile
  Taylor & Francis – 11 noi 2019 25667 lei  43-57 zile
Hardback (1) 81864 lei  43-57 zile
  Taylor & Francis – 7 mar 2018 81864 lei  43-57 zile

Din seria ICLARS Series on Law and Religion

Preț: 25667 lei

Preț vechi: 30990 lei
-17% Nou

Puncte Express: 385

Preț estimativ în valută:
4912 5102$ 4080£

Carte tipărită la comandă

Livrare economică 03-17 februarie 25

Preluare comenzi: 021 569.72.76

Specificații

ISBN-13: 9780367893583
ISBN-10: 0367893584
Pagini: 168
Dimensiuni: 174 x 246 mm
Greutate: 0.31 kg
Ediția:1
Editura: Taylor & Francis
Colecția Routledge
Seria ICLARS Series on Law and Religion

Locul publicării:Oxford, United Kingdom

Public țintă

Postgraduate

Cuprins

Introduction;  1: Free exercise and the definition of religion;  2: Institutional autonomy and the ministerial exception;  3: Fighting wars and claims of conscience;  4: Early modern free exercise;  5: Free exercise becomes (more) chaotic;  6: The Smith revolution;  7: Corporate conscience;  8: Lower courts and the protection of religion;

Notă biografică

Mark Strasser is Trustees Professor of Law at Capital University Law School in Columbus, Ohio. His previous books include Religion, Education and the State: An Unprincipled Doctrine in Search of Moorings (2011), Same-Sex Unions Across the United States (2011), On Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, and the Rule of Law: Constitutional Interpretation at the Crossroads (2002), The Challenge of Same-Sex Marriage: Federalist Principles and Constitutional Protections (1999), Legally Wed: Same-Sex Marriage and the Constitution (1997), Agency, Free Will, and Moral Responsibility (1992), The Moral Philosophy of John Stuart Mill: Toward Modifications of Contemporary Utilitarianism (1991), and Francis Hutcheson’s Moral Theory: Its Form and Utility (1990).

Recenzii

'Mark Strasser provides a fascinating and important analysis of the United States Supreme Court’s free exercise jurisprudence. He points out the Court’s failure to set and apply coherent standards, first under the Free Exercise Clause and later under RFRA. As a result, the lower courts have struggled to craft any sort of consistent doctrine under RFRA and under state RFRAs. Strasser explains that this works against accommodations for religious people and against those who oppose religious accommodation. This book is an important addition to the discussion of free exercise rights.'
Frank S. Ravitch, Michigan State University College of Law, USA

Descriere

The United States Constitution’s protections for conscience, often described as robust, have in reality been of varying strengths, and the Supreme Court has offered specious rationales to justify the inconsistent application of differing standards while claiming to be consistently applying a single principle.