Hands‐Off or Hands‐On?: Deconstructing the ‘Test‐Case’ of Re G within a Culture of Children's Rights

This note challenges the so‐called ‘test‐case’ status of Re G in so far as it attempts to overturn the principle established in Re T that courts should adopt a neutral position when it comes to weighing the merits of different upbringings and the education provided by parents of minority religions. In determining the future upbringing and education of children who had been brought up in a minority religious community, Re G applies a principle of maximising educational opportunity in order to uphold the mother's proposed educational choice and way of life. This note argues that Re G was wrong to do so, should not be regarded as establishing any new principle and that the only relevant principle, both in determining this case and future cases, ought to rest on the psychological well‐being of the child.     

Coercive Federalism and the Search for Constitutional Limits

This article explores several constitutional bases for questioningthe federal government's use of unfunded mandates and otherforms of coercive intergovernmental regulation. The "anti-coercion"and "anti-commandeering" principles of the Tenth Amendment areproposed as general arguments against these forms of regulation.The constitutional requirement of "uniformity" attached to indirecttaxation, the "anti-discrimination rule" in the area of intergovernmentaltax immunity, and the "equality rule", which stems from theunwritten tradition of maintaining equality among the states,are developed as additional bases for striking down federallaws that distribute mandate burdens disproportionately amongthe states.