This website uses cookies

We use cookies to enhance your experience and support COUNTER Metrics for transparent reporting of readership statistics. Cookie data is not sold to third parties or used for marketing purposes.

Skip to main content
null
Albany Law Review
  • Menu
  • Articles
    • General
    • Justice Commentaries
    • New York Appeals
    • State Constitutional Commentary
    • All
  • For Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • About
  • Issues
  • Bylaws
  • search
  • RSS feed (opens a modal with a link to feed)

RSS Feed

Enter the URL below into your favorite RSS reader.

http://localhost:21113/feed
P-ISSN 0002-4678
E-ISSN 2162-4151
State Constitutional Commentary
Vol. 77, Issue 4, 2015January 05, 2015 EDT

“OUR CONSTITUTION, OUR PRECEDENTS, AND [OUR] OWN BEST HUMAN JUDGMENTS:” A SURVEY OF FREE EXERCISE STATE CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION IN THE WAKE OF OREGON V. SMITH.

Robert McIver,
free exercise of religionOregon v. SmithNew FederalismNew York State Constitutionfederalist systemreligious libertiesstate constitutional protectionsFirst Amendment

Articles in Vol. 77, Issue 4, 2015

Vol. 77, Issue 4, 2015
  • EDITOR’S FOREWORD
    Vincent Martin Bonventre
  • DEDICATION
    Robert McIver
  • CHIEF JUDGE LAWRENCEH. COOKE EIGHTH ANNUAL STATE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMENTARY SYMPOSIUM: EXCEEDING FEDERAL STANDARDS
    Albany Law Review
  • JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE: IS IT PRESERVED OR IMPAIRED BY THE ELECTION OF JUDGES?
    Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick
  • NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—TODAY UNQUESTIONABLY ACCEPTED AND APPLIED AS A VITAL AND ESSENTIAL PART OF NEW YORK JURISPRUDENCE
    Stewart F. Hancock Jr.
  • DO PRECEDENTS TAKE PRECEDENCE? STARE DECISISAND OREGON CONSTITUTIONALISM
    Jack L. Landau
  • REALIGNING THE CONSTITUTIONAL PENDULUM
    Myron T. SteelePeter I. Tsoflias
  • CONSTITUTIONAL “STUFF”: HOUSE CLEANING THE NEW YORK CONSTITUTION—PART I
    Peter J. GalieChristopher Bopst
  • AVOIDING THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY: MISSOURI AND KANSAS SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF CAPS ON NONECONOMIC DAMAGES DEMONSTRATE THE NEED FOR OBJECTIVE PROCEDURES IN THE SELECTION OF SPECIAL JUDGES
    Stephen R. Clark
  • BALANCING THE SIXTH AMENDMENT ON THE SCALES OF JUSTICE: IS THE LAWYER OR THE CLIENT IN CONTROL OF THE PROCEEDINGS?
    Caroline Johnson Levine
  • STOPS, FRISKS, AND POLICE ENCOUNTERS: THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS’S STRICT APPLICATION OF THE DE BOUR STANDARD
    Andrea A. Long
  • CRITIQUE OF MONEY JUDGMENT PART THREE: RESTRAINING NOTICES
    David Gray Carlson
  • “OUR CONSTITUTION, OUR PRECEDENTS, AND [OUR] OWN BEST HUMAN JUDGMENTS:” A SURVEY OF FREE EXERCISE STATE CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION IN THE WAKE OF OREGON V. SMITH.
    Robert McIver
Albany Law Review
Robert McIver, “OUR CONSTITUTION, OUR PRECEDENTS, AND [OUR] OWN BEST HUMAN JUDGMENTS:” A SURVEY OF FREE EXERCISE STATE CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION IN THE WAKE OF OREGON V. SMITH., 77 Albany Law Review (2015).
Save article as...▾

View more stats

Powered by Scholastica, the modern academic journal management system