Abstract
Tim Keller's article insightfully explores the flawed legal reasoning behind and potentially pernicious consequences of the Arizona Supreme Court's 2009 Cain vs. Horne ruling. He carefully examines the two fundamental flaws in the court's interpretative methodology: a failure to engage in a straightforward textual analysis of Arizona's Blaine Amendment and an unwillingness to adhere to the analytic framework that the court itself had previously established. In addition, Keller discusses the implications of the Cain decision, demonstrating why it is not persuasive legal authority for similarly situated constitutional provisions in other states. This brief comment notes that Keller's analysis identifies the fundamental misapprehension that underpins Cain: an unwillingness on the part of many courts to accept their Blaine Amendments at face value and a lack of clarity about the difference between direct and indirect aid.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
