tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4098620.post302448537058193803..comments2024-03-15T04:02:42.341-04:00Comments on CrimLaw: Drug Courts and The Establishment ClauseUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4098620.post-40582302958684663562014-11-10T23:31:43.858-05:002014-11-10T23:31:43.858-05:00I suspect some of the driver of the amount of sett...I suspect some of the driver of the amount of settlement is a civil rights attorney fee shifting provision.TimSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4098620.post-50689886405173612442014-11-01T10:41:21.268-04:002014-11-01T10:41:21.268-04:00No. I am pointing out that in order to follow the ...No. I am pointing out that in order to follow the current rules set by the appellate courts as applied to reality the only actual constitutional option is to send everyone to jail - whether they are religious or not. Furthermore, this constitutional interpretation paints everyone into a corner. Athiests of America did not go around setting up programs to treat drug addicts. The Salvation Army, AA, Catholic Charities, &cetera did. If the government now begins to create or encourage the formation of programs with the sole purpose of excluding religion or pressures organizations to remove religious components that is the government inhibiting religion clearly violating the "making no law respecting an establishment of religion."<br /><br />You are however on the correct track as to where the problem lies. Current constitutional interpretation of this clause allows a veto of one. Five thousand people go through the program and a single person objects because he is an athiest (or pretends to be so in order to get out of punishment or get a big check from the government) then the program isn't constitutional unless the government orders it to remove religion or sets up a competitor specifically to exclude religion - which is an unconstitutional act by the government.Ken Lammershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15646250142814585354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4098620.post-4611119000931560972014-11-01T09:01:01.858-04:002014-11-01T09:01:01.858-04:00You seem to be implying that it would be constitut...You seem to be implying that it would be constitutional if the court were to say, "if you're religious (or pretend to be), you can go into this program and avoid jail. If you're not (or refuse to pretend), you go to jail." Is that seriously what you're implying?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com