Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1097670
 
 

Citations (3)



 
 

Footnotes (171)



 


 



A Constitutional Hierarchy of Religions? Justice Scalia, the Ten Commandments, and the Future of the Establishment Clause


Thomas Colby


George Washington University Law School


Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 100, No. 1097, 2006
GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 398
GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 398

Abstract:     
If there is one principle of Establishment Clause jurisprudence that has enjoyed the unanimous support of all of the Justices of the Supreme Court over the last half century, it is that all religions are afforded equal status under the Constitution. With his dissenting opinion in the 2005 Ten Commandments cases, however, Justice Scalia has upset that consensus. According to Justice Scalia's dissent, the Establishment Clause affords greater protection to the believers of some religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) than others (Hinduism, Buddhism, no religion, everything else). Turning traditional constitutional law on its head, Justice Scalia's approach treats the Establishment Clause in the context of governmental religious expression neither as a mandate for equality, nor as a vehicle for protection of the minority against the tyranny of the majority, but rather as a mechanism for protecting the majority from the inconvenience of having to respect the rights of the minority. And not just that: on Justice Scalia's view, it appears that the Establishment Clause affords greater protection only to the majority religious outlook (Judeo-Christianity) that was prevalent at the time of the framing. If ever the tables are turned, and the practitioners of other religions (or of no religion) achieve majority status in some communities, the Establishment Clause will not extend the same rights and powers to them that it extends to the adherents of Judeo-Christianity. To Justice Scalia, biblical monotheism is and always shall be the preferred religion of the American Constitution.

This Article critiques Justice Scalia's theory on three principal grounds. First, it argues that Justice Scalia's reasoning is based on a misguided conception of inclusiveness and of minority rights, wrongly suggesting that an equality norm that protects approximately eighty-five percent of Americans, at the expense of the other fifteen percent, is somehow constitutionally acceptable. Second, it argues that Justice Scalia's defense of his rule on the ground of a perceived need for doctrinal consistency rings hollow, both because his own rule manifestly does not achieve the consistency that he seeks, and because it is misguided to insist, in the name of consistency, that the Court's traditional mandate of neutrality in religious matters is somehow discredited by the Court's pragmatic refusal to immediately extend it to the full extent of its logical reach. Finally, this Article argues that Justice Scalia's rule cannot be defended on originalist grounds, because although it aligns almost perfectly with the political preferences of the religious right, it is both theoretically bankrupt and demonstrably not mandated by, nor even supported by, the historical evidence of the original meaning of the First Amendment on which it is purportedly based. In that respect, Justice Scalia's dissent stands as a stark example of the inability of originalism to produce in practice - even when practiced by its most able disciples - a genuine apolitical constitutionalism.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 45

Keywords: Scalia, Establishment Clause, Church and State, Religion, Ten Commandments

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: February 26, 2008  

Suggested Citation

Colby, Thomas, A Constitutional Hierarchy of Religions? Justice Scalia, the Ten Commandments, and the Future of the Establishment Clause. Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 100, No. 1097, 2006; GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 398; GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 398. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1097670

Contact Information

Thomas Colby (Contact Author)
George Washington University Law School ( email )
2000 H Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20052
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 833
Downloads: 109
Download Rank: 148,323
Citations:  3
Footnotes:  171

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.407 seconds