Is it unconstitutional to have churches on my college campus?

[MODU]

No.  In fact, my college actually built a chapel on the school grounds.  It's unique though, since it's designed for multiple religions.  In the middle of the stage, there is a revolving "front" that rotates 120 degrees.  It is designed for Protestants, Catholics, and Jews . . . each group having a specially designed front on this platform which is rotated before their respective services.

[A18]

I couldn't disa

I couldn't disagree more. The damage done by some precedents is such that to reverse them would send shockwaves through our constitutional order, and greatly disturb the American legal system.

In just a decade or two, the doctrine that the due process clause protects the "right to privacy" will be well-established, and will under this line of reasoning be irreversible--or perhaps it is completely established already. It has become equally well-established that the equal protection clause extends to voting rights. Similarly, it has become very well-established that the privileges or immunities clause has no meaning at all. Yet, I would have no objection to reversing any of these mistakes, just as I would have no objection to reversing the error of extending privileges and immunities to non-citizens.

This approach seems to assert that there is a sort of "constitutional common law." It is just like ordinary common law (in that it was framed by judges, not legislators), except on a constitutional rather than statutory level. It is an interesting approach, of course, but one that would give judges far too much discretion.

gree more. The damage done by some precedents is such that to reverse them would send shockwaves through our constitutional order, and greatly disturb the American legal system.

In just a decade or two, the doctrine that the due process clause protects the "right to privacy" will be well-established, and will under this line of reasoning be irreversible--or perhaps it is completely established already. It has become equally well-established that the equal protection clause extends to voting rights. Similarly, it has become very well-established that the privileges or immunities clause has no meaning at all. Yet, I would have no objection to reversing any of these mistakes, just as I would have no objection to reversing the error of extending privileges and immunities to non-citizens.

This approach seems to assert that there is a sort of "constitutional common law." It is just like ordinary common law (in that it was framed by judges, not legislators), except on a constitutional rather than statutory level. It is an interesting approach, of course, but one that would give judges far too much discretion.

Overturning those decisions would not send shockwaves through the American legal system, because state legislation could easily act in these areas in no time.

[opebo]

Overturning those decisions would not send shockwaves through the American legal system, because state legislation could easily act in these areas in no time.

However it would not do so.

[A18]

Whether or not it would do so is irrelevant.