Constitutional Interpretation – Page 23 – Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

Evolution and the Constitution

Post author:Edward A. Fallone
Post published:September 27, 2011
Post category:Constitutional Interpretation Political Processes & Rhetoric Public

Recent news reports make much of the fact that, with one exception, none of the current Republican candidates for President has been willing to embrace the theory of evolution as the commonly accepted explanation of how the multiple forms of life currently existing on our planet came to be. Instead, several of the Republican hopefuls have argued pointedly that creationism (the belief that all life was created by God in its current form) is an equally legitimate scientific theory on a par with evolution. For example, Texas Governor Rick Perry has declared that evolution is “just one theory” among several that might explain the current state of biodiversity on the earth. Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman is the only Republican candidate willing to take a strong position supporting the theory of evolution as a scientifically proven fact.

According to a December, 2010 Gallup Poll, a combined 54% of Americans believe that human beings evolved from less advanced life forms, either under God’s guidance or without any participation from God. Meanwhile, 40% of Americans believe that God created human beings in their present form. The survey results also indicate that the relative percentage of Americans who believe in some form of evolution (as opposed to creationism) rises as education levels rise.

Why then, do the Republican presidential hopefuls almost uniformly reject a scientific theory that is accepted by the majority of Americans?

The Supreme Court and the Fate of the Ministerial Exception

Post author:Scott C. Idleman
Post published:September 25, 2011
Post category:Civil Rights Constitutional Interpretation Education & Law First Amendment Public Religion & Law U.S. Supreme Court

In 1999, Cheryl Perich began service as a lay teacher at the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School in Redford, Michigan. A year later, she became a “called teacher,” selected by the congregation to serve as a commissioned minister and charged with duties of a more pastoral nature, such as teaching religion classes, leading the students in devotional exercises, and participating in weekly chapel functions, though continuing to teach predominantly secular subjects.

In June 2004, however, Perich developed symptoms of a medical disorder, eventually diagnosed as narcolepsy. Despite obtaining in February 2005 a doctor’s certification of her ability to return to work, the school had already made alternative arrangements and proposed that she resign her call. After she threatened legal action for alleged disability discrimination, the congregation then rescinded her call and she was duly terminated from her teaching position at the school.

The Constitutional Right of Recall

Post author:Edward A. Fallone
Post published:August 22, 2011
Post category:Constitutional Interpretation Federalism Political Processes & Rhetoric Public Wisconsin Law & Legal System

The largest newspaper in Wisconsin, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, continues to take the editorial position that the public’s right to recall elected officials should only be exercised in cases of misfeasance in office or of criminal conduct. The editorial page actively disparages the use of the recall process in cases where voters simply disagree with the policy choices of their elected representatives. Recent examples of this editorial position can be seen here, and in the decision to excerpt a similar editorial published by the newspaper USA Today here. On this past Sunday, Steven Walters commented in the Journal-Sentinel on possible amendments to the Wisconsin Constitution intended to modify the existing recall provisions and to bring them into line with the more limited scope advocated by these editorials.

I have commented on this issue before. The editorial position of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel is misguided. In particular, in editorializing against the exercise of the recall power, the Journal-Sentinel fails to account for both the specific text of the Wisconsin Constitution and the understanding of the recall power among the founding generation of our country. The key to understanding the proper scope of the recall power is the basic conception of “the sovereignty of the people.”