Original Intent : Chief Justice Rehnquist and the Course of American Church-State Relations

Contemporary debate in the area of church/state relations centers around the religion clauses of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion [the Establishment Clause] or prohibiting the free exercise thereof [the Free Exercise Clause]." Original Intent is a readable and objective summary of the views of Chief Justice Rehnquist and an enlightening treatise on the future of church/state relations in America.

Derek Davis begins with a brief biographical profile of Rehnquist and an overview of his broad judicial philosophy. The book also includes a summary of the importance of original intent in constitutional jurisprudence; an examination of the events, people, and documents which at the time of the nation's founding were instrumental in adoption of the First Amendment religion clauses; an account of the Supreme Court's efforts in the last two centuries to interpret and apply those clauses; an evaluation of Rehnquist's interpretations of the clauses, with emphasis on his understanding of the framer's original intent; a description of the present tensions the Supreme Court is experiencing in its efforts to formulate a workable framework for applying the religion clauses in church/state controversies; and an evaluation of Rehnquist's church/state philosophy.

Davis warns that Rehnquist is leading the Supreme Court away from its separationist readings of the religion clauses and substituting accomodationist readings which, he contends, are neither in keeping with the original intentions of the Founding Fathers nor good for future American church/state relations. The current composition of the court and Rehnquist's pivotal role, Davis maintains, portend serious departures from the Court's traditional separationist stance and the possibility of sweeping changes in its approaches to the religion clauses.

The separation of church and state, a First Amendment principle long upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, is now endangered, according to attorney Davis. In an important, dispassionate, disturbing brief, he faults the "accommodationist" philosophy of Chief Justice William Rehnquist who believes that the government should be free to dispense aid to various religious groups so long as no favoritism is involved. Rehnquist's majority decision in last year's Smith case, which implies that government at all levels may support or limit religious practices if they choose to do so, is "frightening in its implications for religious liberty," contends Davis, associate editor of the Journal of Church and State. His closely argued treatise includes a valuable balance-sheet predicting how each of the current Supreme Court justices is likely to vote on future religious matters. Strict separationism is no threat to religious life in the U.S., claims Davis, an argument well worth pondering.
Copyright 1991 Reed Business Information, Inc.

Davis, an attorney and an associate editor of the Journal of Church and State , argues that Chief Justice William Rehnquist's accommodationist interpretation of the First Amendment's prohibition against an establishment of religion portends serious changes in the Supreme Court's traditional separationist readings. Beginning with a brief personal profile, Davis then discusses Rehnquist's judicial philosophy, which emphasizes strict constructionism, a deference to other branches of government, and states' rights. He examines the debate about the original intent of the framers of the Constitution and ties it in with the First Amendment's religion clauses. In analyzing how the Supreme Court has interpreted these clauses over the years, he suggests that the Court is leaning toward Rehnquist's readings, which is not what the framers had in mind in their search for religious liberty and which does not bode well for future church-state relations.
-Robert W. Langran, Villanova Univ., Pa.
Copyright 1991 Reed Business Information, Inc.