Home > Journals > Michigan Law Review > MLR > Volume 105 > Issue 6 (2007)
Almost a hundred years ago, the American Association of University Professors established guidelines for civility among scholars, saying that academic exchanges "should be set forth with dignity, courtesy, and temperateness of language." I agree wholeheartedly with these principles, and I will not succumb to the temptation to respond in kind to Professor Laycock's review. Tone is much less important than having a frank exchange of views. It is well known that Professor Laycock and I have very different perspectives on the proper interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause. His review and my response should be an opportunity for us to explore our intellectual differences. In this brief response, I will focus on the two most important theoretical points from God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law that he attempts to disparage. The are the heart of my theory, so they are well worth debating.
Marci A. Hamilton,
A Response to Professor Laycock,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol105/iss6/10
Constitutional Law Commons, Legal Writing and Research Commons, Religion Law Commons, Rule of Law Commons