Religion and the Constitution

On Tuesday, ACS hosted Bill Marshall, Professor of Law at UNC, to speak on "The Founding Fathers: Religion and the Constitution." Mr. Marshall began his talk by noting that religion serves as the focal point on the on-going culture wars. Both sides think that every case they lose is the end of the world, and that their interests are completely opposed. However, Mr. Marshall argued that the secular and religious forces actually compliment each other.

In his view, the progressives have been the true protectors of religious freedom in the United States, which the conservatives don't seek to protect religious freedom, but a particular partisan agenda. The progressives' mistake, according to Mr. Marshall, is that they have let themselves be portrayed as anti-religion, rather than demonstrating that they are in fact protecting religious freedom by preventing the mixture of any religion and the government.

Mr. Marshall noted that the courts continue to say there are no clear lines in cases focused on establishment (like litigation involving nativity scenes), and that they are right - there are no clear lines as to what is constitutional and what is not, because it is hard to determine what counts as religious belief, when it can encompass almost any type of behavior.

Mr. Marshall also argued that the conservatives have forgotten that the United States is a secular society to begin with. Thus, while most people respond in surveys that they support school prayer, once it is suggested that it may not be their prayer of choice, support for school prayer falls apart. Mr. Marshall suggested that government and religion are dangerous when combined, but that pure secularism has its problems, as it can be divisive. He noted that evangelicals used to be in favor of strict separation of church and state, but that this changed in the 1960s when they looked around and saw part of what they were being attacked. The government actions did not look neutral to them. Instead they saw an overarching secularism as its own form of an establishment, and one that excluded them. This shows that an overly compulsive secularism can create its own problems. In response, the left needs to do more to equate anti-establishment norms with the protection of religion and demonstrate to those on the right that their focus should be not on protecting a certain faith, but ensuring that there is a true separation between church and state. Mr. Marshall believes that the current Summum Supreme Court case shows the intellectual weakness of carrying the conservative argument too far, as they have fought for the equality for religious instiutions and organizations in state treatment and now are faced with the same type of claim in opposition. Hopefully, this will suggest strongly t the conservatives that there is no better way to protect religion than keep the government out of it.

The Founding Father? Religion and the Constitution

The Founding Father? Religion and the Constitution
featuring Professor Bill Marshall, UNC Law

Tuesday, Nov. 18 @ 12:10 p.m.
JG 101

Come listen to Professor Bill Marshall discuss the religion clauses of the Constitution, including current issues and historical perspectives on the role of religion in government. Bring your questions!

Bill Marshall is a professor of law at UNC-Chapel Hill. He served as Deputy White House Counsel and Deputy Assistant to the President of the United States during the Clinton Administration where he worked on issues ranging from freedom of religion to separation of powers. He has published extensively on constitutional law issues and is a nationally recognized first amendment scholar. He is also the Co-Chair of the Religion Clauses issue group for ACS National.

Faculty Election Discussion - Winners and Losers

On Monday, Professors Persily and Tierney spoke about the recent election, the results, the litigation, and what clues it offers about the future. The most important issue, that Professor Persily started off with, was the issue that wasn't: electoral litigation. Despite huge amounts of pre-election electoral maneuvering, with Republicans bringing lawsuits over voter fraud and voter integrity issues, while Democrats largely sued to force counties to prepare for anticipated heavy turnout. As it turned out, election lines averaged about ten minutes nationwide, and the anticipated voter challenges did not materialize - likely because of the margin of victory as Obama carried more than enough states to take an Electoral College majority only counting states he won solidly enough no challenge would have overturned the result. As Professor Persily pointed out, had the election come down to Missouri (which still has not certified a winner), the amount of litigation would be starkly different.

Professor Persily went on to explain the demographic results of the election, arguing that far from being an atypical election, this election was a "typical Democratic national victory" (which itself is atypical), largely explainable by a four-point swing in the national vote. The increased youth and African-American turnout contributed, but not by much - what was far more important was the significantly increased margin Obama won both of these demographics by as compared to Kerry. For all the talk of increased turnout, the overall turnout was not sharply higher, as only slightly more Democrats voted, counterbalanced by a slightly smaller percentage of Republicans than in 2004.

The election largely came down to the typical political science model, focused heavily on the incumbent President's approval rating, which has been setting record lows for months, and the economy, which has fortunately not followed the same path as the approval ratings and eclipsed the records set in the Great Depression. Factors such as character attacks, foreign policy, and the like simply were unable to alter the narrative of the race.

Professor Tirney took a sharply different approach than (as he put it) "this was nearly a typical election", instead focusing on the magnitude of Obama's victory. First comparing Obama to Churchill, he focused on the natural political talents Obama has demonstrated throughout the election. Additionally, he focused on several big 'winners' of the election (Obama, Ted Kennedy, Technology, Early Voting, and Howard Dean, among others). The losers were the "Old Baby Boomers" and the era of Vietnam politics, '60s politics and the rest of the baby-boomer era political issues that failed to make an impact this election. Hillary's attempt at power broker politics - lining up the right people to secure their constituents failed as well. Lastly, public financing is dead as it currently stands, though the concern this poses is debatable - Obama's fundraising strategy, relying largely on small donors, poses less of a threat of corruption than the usual bundling and big-donor strategy (though it should be noted Obama used this strategy as well to great effect, and so it may not be as dead as has been assumed). The talk concluded with discussions over the next set of elections (2010), and the still-undecided Alaskan Senate race as Ted Stevens fights to be re-elected to the Senate despite his felony conviction.