'Town of Greece v. Galloway' with UVA Law Professor Douglas Laycock

University of Virginia law professor Douglas Laycock discusses Town of Greece v. Galloway, a U.S. Supreme Court case he argued in November 2013 that may clarify the legal limits on public prayer in government meetings across the country. Laycock's talk was sponsored the Law Christian Fellowship and the Secular Legal Society.

[muffiniepuffs]

Why don't you just rite out a paper. Get it published and put it out on the internet, because you evidently know more about this than the majority of the lawyers who have anything to say on it.

[shannonduffy]

This video offers an excellent analysis of the issues in this case and precisely what's at stake. No surprise, since Professor Laycock also argued the case before the Supreme Court. Here, his discussion with the UVA Law students really frames the issues nicely.

[lburdeos]

Professor Laycock, with due respect, the "Town of Greece, New York" is a municipality-and has no relevance and no tangible connection to Congress. The U.S. First Amendment states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The language, the words, the context is pellucid-the First Amendment APPLIES to CONGRESS-not a municipality!!!
Again, "Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW." No interpretation-no construction can yield anything BUT "CONGRESS" 
There is NOTHING contained in the First Amendment that has "town" or "municipality."
Again, the Town is a Town-no the U.S. Congress!!

Why are the lawyers who represent the Galloways so intransigent-so recalcitrant in a juggernaut-like fashion in fathoming that.
Perhaps, maybe those lawyers flunked "Legal Reasoning???" 

Or is it impress colleagues, peers, law students, other law pedagogists that these lawyers argued before the U.S. Supreme Court.

There is no reasonable argument that can be articulated that the town is a) Congress and b) made a law respecting an establishment of religion. 
So the arguments that were articulated are vaccous and illogical!!

These individuals-the Galloways- and even their lawyers-have misconstrued, misapperceived and hughely MISAPPLIED  the First Amendment.

I thought lawyers were to accept and prosecute litigation for justice-and to evaluate and bring cases for the explicit purpose of achieving that end of justice-not to bring what I would conclude is a frivolous lawsuit.

So much for ethics!! 

In addition, the Galloways DID not file until 2008-2009 TEN YEARS Subsequent to the prayer.

Not only that, this is not a "legislative prayer" for the NONE of the enactments or signed laws are "blessed."

If the Galloways did not like the "prayer" they could have left, returned subsequent to the prayer or waited until it was over.
Or they could have effectuated the democratic process and became elected to the town's city council and moved per Roberts Rules of Order-not to pray!!!

Galloways sued for a civil rights violation-whose civil rights???? How were they harmed?? At no point-the Galloways were NEVER forced to hear, to lead or to pray. I will infer that the Galloways lack "Standing" on both constitutional and prudential grounds. See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 17. Or whatever injury they have asserted, it must be hypothetical, hylomorphic and asomatous!! 
"Standing" Professor Laycock, is the in limine issue-BEFORE the merits can be heard or adjudicated!!

Continuing, a persual of the Federalist papers-the Magna Carta, the Articles of Confederation disclose that the intent-the manifest purpose of the First Amendment is to apply ONLY to Congress.

Which is the legal justification-or part of it- that the district court employed when that court granted the MSJ against the Galloways!!

The Second District Court of Appeals's logic in reversal and remand is flawed, vapid and evinces a intellectual deficiency in perusing and interpreting the First Amendment.

Now, the United States Supreme Court has heard oral

What a profligacious, massive, monumental misuse of time, effort and expenses!!

Every year or every term for the U.S. Supreme Court has several thousand -maybe several hundred thousand cert petitions and these justices CHOSE this case to hear and promulgate an opinion.