Footnotes (123)



You Have Been in Afghanistan: A Discourse on the Van Alstyne Method

Garrett Epps

University of Baltimore School of Law


Duke Law Journal, Vol. 54, 2005

This essay pays tribute to William Van Alstyne, one of our foremost constitutional scholars, by applying the methods of textual interpretation he laid out in a classic essay, "Interpreting This Constitution: On the Unhelpful Contribution of Special Theories of Judicial Review." I make use of the graphical methods Van Alstyne has applied to the general study of the First Amendment to examine the Supreme Court's recent decisions in the context of the Free Exercise Clause, in particular the landmark case of "Employment Division v. Smith". The application of Van Alstyne's use of the burden of proof as an interpretive tool and the results of the application of the graphic analysis, I argue, suggest that "Smith" is a gravely flawed decision, inconsistent both with precedent and with sophisticated textual analysis of the sort that much of Van Alstyne's own distinguished scholarship holds before us as a model of principled and neutral constitutional application.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 36

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: October 21, 2008  

Suggested Citation

Epps, Garrett, You Have Been in Afghanistan: A Discourse on the Van Alstyne Method (2005). Duke Law Journal, Vol. 54, 2005. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1287171

Contact Information

Garrett Epps (Contact Author)
University of Baltimore School of Law ( email )
1420 N. Charles Street
Baltimore, MD 21218
United States
Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 514
Downloads: 22
Footnotes:  123

© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 0.234 seconds