THE SIXTH ANNUAL FRITZ B. BURNS LECTURE

PROTECTING RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN THE NEW MILLENNIUM: SHOULD WE AMEND THE RELIGION CLAUSES OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION?

INTRODUCTION

Kurt T. Lash

SHOULD THE RELIGION CLAUSES OF THE CONSTITUTION BE AMENDED?

Kent Greenawalt

In this article, Professor Kent Greenawalt discusses how the Supreme Court’s decision in Employment Division v. Smith has altered the standards by which free exercise of religion is viewed, and how the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Establishment Clause has evolved over the last thirty years. Professor Greenawalt criticizes the curtailing of free exercise rights in Smith as insensitive to religious minorities. Recent Supreme Court decisions in establishment cases have signaled a shift towards principles of neutrality, and abandonment of the three-part test first established in Lemon v. Kurtzman. Professor Greenawalt argues that the standards set forth in Lemon deserve the Supreme Court’s continued support. He concludes that although current interpretations of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause are troubling, they do not yet justify amending the Constitution.

PROTECTING RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN THE NEXT MILLENNIUM: SHOULD WE AMEND THE RELIGION CLAUSES OF THE CONSTITUTION?

by Robert P. George

In this article Professor George discusses the original meaning of the First Amendment’s religion clauses. He argues that the Constitution does not bestow upon the judiciary the power to grant conduct exemptions from neutral general laws, or to establish the terms of the relationship between church and state.

ORIGINALISM AND THE RELIGION CLAUSES: A RESPONSE TO PROFESSOR GEORGE

by Kent Greenawalt

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND THE RELIGION CLAUSES: A RESPONSE TO PROFESSOR GREENAWALT

by Robert P. George

ARTICLES

THE CRISIS OF VOLUME IN CALIFORNIA’S APPELLATE COURTS: A REACTION TO JUSTICE IN THE BALANCE 2020 AND A PROPOSAL TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF NONMERITORIOUS APPEALS

by Justice William F. Rylaarsdam

In 1993 the Commission on the Future of the California Courts issued Justice in the Balance 2020, a report recommending ways to streamline and economize dispute resolution in California Courts. Justice Rylaarsdam of the California Court of Appeal argues that California’s intermediate appellate courts face a “crisis of volume” and both the Commission and Professor J. Clark Kelso’s report to the Commission have failed to recommend the type of drastic changes that are essential for these courts to continue to perform their constitutional duties. First, the author critically examines the recommendations proposed by both the Commission and Professor Kelso. The author then systematically reviews the current appellate procedures and their inefficiencies. Finally, the author offers an alternative appellate review procedure that would permit the courts to resolve obviously nonmeritorious criminal and juvenile appeals, while preserving all constitutional protections to which litigants are entitled.

DID “THREE STRIKES” CAUSE THE RECENT DROP IN CALIFORNIA CRIME? AN ANALYSIS OF THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL’S REPORT

by Linda S. Beres and Thomas D. Griffith

In March 1998 the California Attorney General’s office issued a report contending that the “Three Strikes” Legislation enacted in 1994 is largely responsible for the largest overall drop in California’s crime rate over a four-year period. In this Article Professors Beres and Griffith examine that argument and discuss the relationship between “Three Strikes” and the recent decline in the California crime rate. The authors conclude that there is no evidence that “Three Strikes” played an important role in the drop in the crime rate. The authors also discuss alternative explanations for the drop in crime.

BEYOND BELLOTTI

by Adam Winkler

In this article Adam Winkler argues that the Supreme Court’s opinion invalidating a ban on corporate speech in the initiative process in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti rested on three pillars of reasoning: one conceptual, one evidentiary, and one theoretical. Each of those pillars, however, has been substantially modified, supplemented, or undermined by developments in both electoral politics and legal doctrine, most notably the Court’s decisions in Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life and Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. The author offers a novel interpretation of those cases, viewing them as a response to the particular problem posed by corporations in the political process: the misuse of shareholder money by corporate managers to advance an electoral agenda the shareholders do not necessarily support. The impact of this notion of “other people’s money” corruption on the conceptual, evidentiary, and theoretical bases of Bellotti—in addition to several other areas of regulation of corporate participation in politics—is assessed to determine if, and how far, the Court has moved beyond Bellotti.

COMMENT

A NEED FOR UNIFORMITY: SURVIVORSHIP UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983

by Michael LeBoff

To determine whether a § 1983 action survives the death of the plaintiff, courts currently will apply state law unless that law is inconsistent with the policies underlying § 1983, namely, deterrence and compensation. Unfortunately, courts have been far from harmonious in concluding when a state survival statute is inconsistent with federal policy. This Comment argues that a uniform rule of survivorship better advances the goals of deterrence and compensation, and provides all citizens equal protection in their federal rights.