Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1287171
 
 

Footnotes (123)



 


 



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


Garrett Epps


University of Baltimore School of Law

2005

Duke Law Journal, Vol. 54, 2005

Abstract:     
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

Accepted Paper Series


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: 289
Downloads: 20
Footnotes:  123

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo5 in 0.234 seconds