American Constitutionalism in Historical Perspective (packet)

Constitutional as applied:

1. 
   Buckley v. Valeo (1976) p. 1393. Compulsory disclosure of contributors is const. If ppl give $, they go on list in Washington as giving to specific party. Public disclosure of membership/support of assoc. Applies strict scrutiny and upholds law requiring the recording of names of contributions and info on them.
   
   1. 
      D/n use overbreadth b/c is clearly overbroad (could apply to minority groups and intimidate them). Under as applied analysis, can allow disclosure law b/c bears on enforcing contribution limits, allows nation to know what is going on, and serves anti-corruption interest of transparency.
      
   2. 
      If minority party w/ lots of content based bias (record of political harassment of the party), when such a case comes up, we will strike it down under as applied analysis. Does this in Brown v. Socialist Workers ’74 Campaign Committee (1982) p. 1395 and gave Socialist workers an exemption from disclosure requirement of disclosing campaign contributions.
      

Unconstitutional as applied:

1. 
   P. 1396 NAACP v. Button (1963) held unconstitutional a VA prohibition on the improper solicitation of any legal or professional business as applied to NAACP litigation activities. NAACP is encouraging litigation that i/n necessary by going to ppl in VA and telling them that they are being treated in unconstitutional way and saying that they would rep them. VA is trying to shut them up. Ct says NAACP engaging in core political speech and law is content-biased.
   
2. 
   Today could be decided on different ground. Now commerciality doctrine would reach same result (ok on advertising ground) and ct w/n allow it on censorship grounds.
   

K. Religious Autonomy

1. 
   Background
   
   1. 
      Text: Free exercise is universal but anti-establishment clause is unique to US---absolute
      
   2.