Jack Phillips stands a chance of winning on religious and artistic freedoms. I hope he does, but I still think his lawyers should have included involuntary servitude.
The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will consider whether a Denver baker acted lawfully in refusing to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple, setting up a major test next term weighing religious freedom against discrimination based on sexual orientation.
NOTE: Artistic freedom is not in the Constitution, but a prohibition against involuntary servitude is found in two amendments. See this thread:
Federal Court Upholds Hoffer v. Totalitarian Government
Phillips’s lawyers stressed artistic freedom more than the baker’s religious beliefs in their reaction to Monday’s Supreme Court announcement.
“Every American should be free to choose which art they will create and which art they won’t create without fear of being unjustly punished by the government,” said David Cortman, -senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom. “It imperils everyone’s freedom by crushing dissent instead of tolerating a diversity of views. We are all at risk when government is able to punish citizens like Jack just because it doesn’t like how he exercises his artistic freedom.”
“Every American should be free to choose which art they will create and which art they won’t create without fear of being unjustly punished by the government,” said David Cortman, -senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom. “It imperils everyone’s freedom by crushing dissent instead of tolerating a diversity of views. We are all at risk when government is able to punish citizens like Jack just because it doesn’t like how he exercises his artistic freedom.”
Supreme Court to take case on baker who refused to sell wedding cake to gay couple
6-8 minutes
Supreme Court to take case on baker who refused to sell wedding cake to gay couple
6-8 minutes
Supreme Court to take case on baker who refused to sell wedding cake to gay couple
Should the Supreme Court ever rule against involuntary servitude regardless of the case it will be the end of Obamacare as well as spitting out a big chunk of Socialism’s governing philosophy.
I would certainly like to hear Socialist charity hustler Steny Hoyer make the case for the general welfare over involuntary servitude in a court rather than in places where his legal philosophy is not challenged or even discussed. Make no mistake about it. Steny and his kind are imposing their philosophy on everyone in order to finance the parasite class with tax dollars:
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said that the individual health insurance mandates included in every health reform bill, which require Americans to have insurance, were “like paying taxes.” He added that Congress has “broad authority” to force Americans to purchase other things as well, so long as it was trying to promote “the general welfare.”
The Congressional Budget Office, however, has stated in the past that a mandate forcing Americans to buy health insurance would be an “unprecedented form of federal action,” and that the “government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”
The Congressional Budget Office, however, has stated in the past that a mandate forcing Americans to buy health insurance would be an “unprecedented form of federal action,” and that the “government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”
Hoyer Says Constitution’s ‘General Welfare’ Clause Empowers Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health Insurance
October 21, 2009
By Matt COVER
Hoyer Says Constitution’s ‘General Welfare’ Clause Empowers Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health Insurance
October 21, 2009
By Matt COVER
Hoyer Says Constitution’s ‘General Welfare’ Clause Empowers Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health Insurance
You can find a thousand-plus commentaries about the general welfare. This one is good enough to debunk Hoyer’s horseshit:
Providing for the welfare of the general public is a basic goal of government. The preamble to the U.S. Constitution cites promotion of the general welfare as a primary reason for the creation of the Constitution. Promotion of the general welfare is also a stated purpose in state constitutions and statutes. The concept has sparked controversy only as a result of its inclusion in the body of the U.S. Constitution.
The first clause of Article I, Section 8, reads, "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." This clause, called the General Welfare Clause or the Spending Power Clause, does not grant Congress the power to legislate for the general welfare of the country; that is a power reserved to the states through the Tenth Amendment. Rather, it merely allows Congress to spend federal money for the general welfare. The principle underlying this distinction—the limitation of federal power—eventually inspired the only important disagreement over the meaning of the clause.
According to James Madison, the clause authorized Congress to spend money, but only to carry out the powers and duties specifically enumerated in the subsequent clauses of Article I, Section 8, and elsewhere in the Constitution, not to meet the seemingly infinite needs of the general welfare.
The first clause of Article I, Section 8, reads, "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." This clause, called the General Welfare Clause or the Spending Power Clause, does not grant Congress the power to legislate for the general welfare of the country; that is a power reserved to the states through the Tenth Amendment. Rather, it merely allows Congress to spend federal money for the general welfare. The principle underlying this distinction—the limitation of federal power—eventually inspired the only important disagreement over the meaning of the clause.
According to James Madison, the clause authorized Congress to spend money, but only to carry out the powers and duties specifically enumerated in the subsequent clauses of Article I, Section 8, and elsewhere in the Constitution, not to meet the seemingly infinite needs of the general welfare.
General Welfare
Finally, Democrats define everything. They always got away with it as though their definitions were chiseled in stone because the press and Democrats are Siamese Twins joined together by their political beliefs. The Internet is changing all of that, but it may be too late to recover lost liberties.
p.s. I was born in FDR’s first administration; so I will not be around long enough to see if Socialism and Socialists are sent back to the garbage dump they came from. Young Americans have to fight a bigger battle than did many in my generation because the federal government is a thousand times more oppressive today than it was in 1934.
Last edited:
