Talk:City of Boerne v. Flores

Start of talk

I changed the recent edit so that the first reference to Katzenbach v. Morgan, and not the second, is eliminated. It seems a great deal more appropriate to refer to Katzenbach in the section dealing with legal doctrine rather than in the section dealing with the background facts of this case. Also, if the second reference and not the first were eliminated, all this article would contain would be a passing mention of Katzenbach. This, I think, would be an egregious omission given the doctrinal importance of Katzenbach. Hydriotaphia 16:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Addition to existing City of Boerne v. Flores

We are students at the Savannah College of Art and Design, majoring in historic preservation. The catalyst for our involvement in Wikipedia was a final project for our Preservation Law course, led by the much acclaimed and admired Professor Lambin. In this course we study the legal aspects of historic preservation. This project not only relieves the monotony of the orthodox term-paper, but gives us a real world sense of contributing as 'up and coming' professionals in the field. Our contributions mean no disrespect to the prior contributors of this entry, and we have treated it as respectful as we could while fulfilling the criteria for our project. Furthermore, we hope we have contributed helpful information in a professional fashion. We would greatly appreciate withholding amendments to our contributions until May 26, 2008. Our grade relies heavily on our contribution. We have supplied our professor with a copy of this entry before we made any changes, and we don't claim any intellectual contribution to it as we found it. To learn more about our project, please visit:

[[1]]

Result / Outcome

I'm confused, who won? Hanz ofbyotch (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Also confused here. The article starts off talking about Boerne v Flores, then completely derails and talks only about the RFRA, with nothing on the outcome of the case included.198.151.130.233 (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Contradiction

The article states, “Yet another [effect] was that it had First Amendment consequences too, in that it spelled the end for any legislative attempts to overturn Employment Division v. Smith.” However, this seems to be contradicted by the statement, “However, in 2000, Congress enacted the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, in which it used the Spending Clause to require that, for localities that receive federal funding, land use laws accommodate religious freedom, essentially, as if RFRA had been constitutional.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.221.232 (talk) 11:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

i agree that sentence needs fixing. after flores, the legislative response moved to the states, where 20 or so states have passed legislation to undo Smith. Indiana's legislation is very much in the news this week. also congress could use the commerce clause, fo exampe, instead of section 2 of the 14th. - robbin stewart, gtbear at gmail.

About as much a court case as the murder of Mary, the Queen of Scots.

Why does this article present the case as a legal matter, when in fact it was simply a recurrance of well-established anti-catholic hysteria among the anglo-saxon protestant elite that controls the USA? They panicked because catholics were growing and thought the Pope will replace the President.

The fact the anglo-saxon elite hid an anti-catcholic church demolition under the disguise of a court case is nothing different from the mock trial of Mary, Queen of Scots, that is, pure justizmorde. In the USA so-called "freedom of religion" applies to everybody (including the hubbardite fiscal scam) but the Church of Rome. The article should focus on these issues! 82.131.210.163 (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on City of Boerne v. Flores. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6ehZI7PeC?url=http://www.columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/1769-1810.pdf to http://www.columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/1769-1810.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Question of distinction

How was this any different than 42 USC 1983, given that religion hinges on the clauses of the first amendment? For purposes of concrete understanding, I'm not quite sure what it was this particular statute attempted to do that wouldn't be redundant in the fist place.66.90.153.184 (talk) 00:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)