pharmacist have 1st Amendment right to refuse to dispense Plan B

[Texanmike]

the reason things are controlled at the federal level is so that there are uniformity and consistency across state lines. this is why we are called the United States. Lets use the example of Europe, which with the establishment of the EU made things uniform across country lines to promote trade. this was modeled after the US. as we move good and services across state line. the commerce clause allows for the fed to regulate those good and services. if we did not have uniformity with interstate products, the states would need to have individual agreements with other states, and thus would not have to honor certain states laws or regulations. what if say the DMV was returned to the state level. and california had one standard and nevada had another. to be even more specific, ca driving age was 18 and NV was 16. would california be forced to accept nevada law?

If I gave you an issue to read about, would you do it? Seriously. I want to just give you a reference, you do the research and tell me what conclusion you come to about the Commerce Clause. There is a very specific reason the commerce clause was inserted into the Constitution. Commerce does not mean goods and services either, which is the entire problem. Look up the Potomac Company.

Mike

what exactly is your definition of commerce then?
according to websters dictionary. Commerce is defined as (2) the exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale involving transportation from place to place
Commerce - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

a commodity is defined as
(1) A raw material or primary agricultural product that can be bought and sold, such as copper or coffee.
(1) A useful or valuable thing, such as water or time.

The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Courts and commentators[who?] have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress. It is not uncommon to see the individual components of the Commerce Clause referred to under specific terms: The Foreign Commerce Clause, the Interstate Commerce Clause,[1] and the Indian Commerce Clause.
Commerce Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

how does the 10th amendment apply in overruling the commerce clause? the 10th amendment reads: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

not sure why you want me to look at a mergers and acquisitions company, but they provide a service. thus if they provide that service in several states they can be regulated under the commerce clause. if they only operate in one state, then the commerce clause would not apply.

It is not my definition or yours that matters. It is what the definition was and what was meant by the people who ratified the Constitution. The reason the Commerce clause was introduced was because of controversy over the Potomac River (circa 1784-1787). Virginia was trying to tax all goods that went over the river from Maryland. Commerce did not mean regulate goods, it was the transportation of goods that the writers and ratifiers of the Constitution understood the word to mean. It was specifically to prevent the states from taxing goods as they crossed state lines. It wasn't until the Marshall court (mid 1820's) that the commerce clause was ever interpreted to mean anything else. He interpreted it almost correctly but said something in his opinion (this is all from memory, look up the opinion on Gibbons v. Ogden for the intimate details. I have to go to bed in a min or I would do it for you). He actually overturned the authority of the FG to interfere but was kind of vague. Using his words (roughly 50 years later) they inspected steamboats cargo going from state to state using the Commerce clause. 90 years after the Commerce clause was written, somebody had a new interpretation.

Mike

 

[Inthemiddle]

Then you're going to eat it on this one. What this means is the nonCatholic employees should quit or be fired for refusing the healthcare coverage they are offered.

And how do you come up with that nonsense?

 

[Syphon]

If I gave you an issue to read about, would you do it? Seriously. I want to just give you a reference, you do the research and tell me what conclusion you come to about the Commerce Clause. There is a very specific reason the commerce clause was inserted into the Constitution. Commerce does not mean goods and services either, which is the entire problem. Look up the Potomac Company.

Mike

what exactly is your definition of commerce then?
according to websters dictionary. Commerce is defined as (2) the exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale involving transportation from place to place
Commerce - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

a commodity is defined as
(1) A raw material or primary agricultural product that can be bought and sold, such as copper or coffee.
(1) A useful or valuable thing, such as water or time.

The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Courts and commentators[who?] have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress. It is not uncommon to see the individual components of the Commerce Clause referred to under specific terms: The Foreign Commerce Clause, the Interstate Commerce Clause,[1] and the Indian Commerce Clause.
Commerce Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

how does the 10th amendment apply in overruling the commerce clause? the 10th amendment reads: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

not sure why you want me to look at a mergers and acquisitions company, but they provide a service. thus if they provide that service in several states they can be regulated under the commerce clause. if they only operate in one state, then the commerce clause would not apply.

It is not my definition or yours that matters. It is what the definition was and what was meant by the people who ratified the Constitution. The reason the Commerce clause was introduced was because of controversy over the Potomac River (circa 1784-1787). Virginia was trying to tax all goods that went over the river from Maryland. Commerce did not mean regulate goods, it was the transportation of goods that the writers and ratifiers of the Constitution understood the word to mean. It was specifically to prevent the states from taxing goods as they crossed state lines. It wasn't until the Marshall court (mid 1820's) that the commerce clause was ever interpreted to mean anything else. He interpreted it almost correctly but said something in his opinion (this is all from memory, look up the opinion on Gibbons v. Ogden for the intimate details. I have to go to bed in a min or I would do it for you). He actually overturned the authority of the FG to interfere but was kind of vague. Using his words (roughly 50 years later) they inspected steamboats cargo going from state to state using the Commerce clause. 90 years after the Commerce clause was written, somebody had a new interpretation.

Mike

did you happen to know any of the founding fathers personally? since you didnt, it is left up to the courts to decide exactly what the commerce clause means. the commerce clause has come to mean that regulation of goods and services that cross state lines.

and those are not my definitions, those are the accepted definitions from websters. so you diagree with websters?

 

[Texanmike]

Many liberals simply refuse to consider individual rights.

Oh, I believe Mike claims to be a conservative so let's not pretend that that particular problem is only with liberals.

I'm a conservative in my own life (religious, military, no drugs etc) but I am not really a "conservative" or a "liberal" in my political opinion.

I believe in self governance and in the right of people to be governed in a way that they choose. I'm kind of an extreme republican (little 'r', not the party) in the order of Patrick Henry. I am more concerned with appropriating decisions to the proper level of government.

I believe that sovereignty is important and that every individual is sovereign. You pass some of that sovereignty to government because it is necessary. Every person wishes to cede a certain amount of sovereignty to different levels of government. When enough people want to cede a power to a different level of government it is done. I'm a big individual rights/individual responsibility kind of guy in my own life but I recognize that other people may want different levels of sovereignty passed up the chain. The FF had an idea of dual sovereignty (actually it was tri-sovereignty but nobody felt the need to explain the sovereignty of the people). That was that both the states and the federal government was sovereign.

I hope that explains my stance just a little. I'll explain it more later if you're really that interested. I've been reading like a fiend for the last several years to try to understand how we got where we are.

I did start off as a staunch conservative but I started to realize that I don't care what they do in Washington as long as they don't infringe on my right to pursue my happiness. I used to be a big "federal government defining marriage" kind of guy too. I slowly started to realize (as did Madison- he was originally a monarchist to begin with by the way) that I don't need to call in the federal government for anything that can possibly be resolved at a lower level because when I do then I have no right to complain when that gun is pointed in my direction.
Mike

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What? You are making no sense. Congress has the authority to establish inferior courts. We weren't arguing that. We were arguing whether or not the federal government (which includes the Judicial branch) has the authority in this case. I didn't need to cite section 1 because that explains the structure of the Judicial branch.

So the Judicial branch of the government is made up of SCOTUS and inferior courts as congress (who is given authority in article 1 section 8) shall authorize.
The judicial power (defined in section 1) shall extend to all of the circumstances described in section 2.

There, it is all quoted. Article 1 section 8 is redundant. They still fall under the Judicial branch of the government. Section 2 lays out what the court has jurisdiction over. That is what is up for debate here. This case should NOT have been heard by a federal court. Of course you don't know any of this because once again, you have done no research you are merely parroting what somebody else told you. Read article II sections 1 and 2 and tell me what gives them the authority to hear this case, period.

Just highlight and tell me how that applies. I'm dying to see this.

Again, you have no interest in reading the document itself for what it is, you merely want to make it say what you want it to say.

I included the 11th amendment to demonstrate that the federal government does not have absolute power in the judicial branch. If it did then the 11th wouldn't exist and section 2 would read "The judicial power shall extend to all cases in the United States".



Mike

Can you point out anywhere I said that the courts have absolute power? Or where I even implied that the government has it? Article two lays out what the court has original jurisdiction over. Congress has the power to assign appellate jurisdiction to anyone it wants, and it delegated it to the federal court system, including the Supreme Court. It also has the power to expand the federal court original jurisdiction to things not mentioned in the constitution, like reviewing federal and state laws. Believe it or not, it also has the power to strip the courts jurisdiction from those areas if it wants.

If the bolded is the case then it does have unlimited power. If Congress may grant authority to the courts that is not defined by the Constitution (which is by definition unconstitutional) then the federal government has absolute power. I see nowhere that says that Congress may assign any additional Jurisdiction. In fact, the reason I brought up the 11th Amendment was that the Marshall (I think, I'll look it up) court went outside the boundaries described in Section 2 and so congress wrote passed and the states ratified an amendment to put SCOTUS in check. Unfortunately Marshall did what he did and found another loophole.

Where do you find the authority for Congress to redefine the Judicial branch of the federal government's authority without amending the Constitution? Don't quote some SCJ, give me where in the Constitution it says that. I've read it thousands of times and never seen it.

Mike

I guess you forgot this part of the constitution.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

That means that, if it is necessary and proper, Congress has the authority to not only write laws, but actually to give the Judicial branch, and the Executive, powers they do not have, like, as an example, judging federal criminal cases. Congress actually has the Constitutional authority to do it, amazing.

If you want to argue that it has actually overstepped the authority given to it and expanded its powers into areas it shouldn't have I will be right there with you. You cannot, however, argue that Congress doesn't actually have the power to expand the federal judiciary into areas that are not mentioned in the constitution. One I am pretty sure no one will argue about is the power to set up tax courts, something that is not actually in the constitution, yet clearly within the authority of Congress, and clearly necessary and proper.

By the way, for those who think that this gives Congress a lot of power, the necessary and proper clause is actually a single test that clearly limits the power of the government.

 

[Texanmike]

what exactly is your definition of commerce then?
according to websters dictionary. Commerce is defined as (2) the exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale involving transportation from place to place
Commerce - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

a commodity is defined as
(1) A raw material or primary agricultural product that can be bought and sold, such as copper or coffee.
(1) A useful or valuable thing, such as water or time.

The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Courts and commentators[who?] have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress. It is not uncommon to see the individual components of the Commerce Clause referred to under specific terms: The Foreign Commerce Clause, the Interstate Commerce Clause,[1] and the Indian Commerce Clause.
Commerce Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

how does the 10th amendment apply in overruling the commerce clause? the 10th amendment reads: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

not sure why you want me to look at a mergers and acquisitions company, but they provide a service. thus if they provide that service in several states they can be regulated under the commerce clause. if they only operate in one state, then the commerce clause would not apply.

It is not my definition or yours that matters. It is what the definition was and what was meant by the people who ratified the Constitution. The reason the Commerce clause was introduced was because of controversy over the Potomac River (circa 1784-1787). Virginia was trying to tax all goods that went over the river from Maryland. Commerce did not mean regulate goods, it was the transportation of goods that the writers and ratifiers of the Constitution understood the word to mean. It was specifically to prevent the states from taxing goods as they crossed state lines. It wasn't until the Marshall court (mid 1820's) that the commerce clause was ever interpreted to mean anything else. He interpreted it almost correctly but said something in his opinion (this is all from memory, look up the opinion on Gibbons v. Ogden for the intimate details. I have to go to bed in a min or I would do it for you). He actually overturned the authority of the FG to interfere but was kind of vague. Using his words (roughly 50 years later) they inspected steamboats cargo going from state to state using the Commerce clause. 90 years after the Commerce clause was written, somebody had a new interpretation.

Mike

did you happen to know any of the founding fathers personally? since you didnt, it is left up to the courts to decide exactly what the commerce clause means. the commerce clause has come to mean that regulation of goods and services that cross state lines.

and those are not my definitions, those are the accepted definitions from websters. so you diagree with websters?

I've read letters back and forth between them as well as speeches and diaries. I don't mean a few, I mean hundreds, maybe thousands. I might not know them personally but I know what the arguments were. Tell me. Why, if the Commerce clause was meant to allow the inspection of goods between states, did it take almost a century for it to be practiced?

I don't disagree with Webster's (though you should really use the OED) modern day definition. I tell you what I will do. I have a couple of dictionaries from 1770 through 1800. I will get them out, photograph them and put a few definitions up for you. Does the fact that a words meaning might have changed over the last 230 years mean that the intent of the contract changed?

Want an example? State. Trace the entomology. You will find something interesting. You know, like how the word Statesman hasn't morphed along with the meaning for the word State?

I'm a research fiend. My opinions have changed vastly over the last 4-5 years. I did not find at all what I expected to find and had I not done the research I would probably hold the same opinions I did.

Mike

 

[Inthemiddle]

Let me get this straight, the court specifically ruling that there is a religious exemption to being required to salute the flag means they actually meant it is a free speech issue and that the religious exemption doesn't actually exist.

The court DID NOT rule on religious freedom. That's what you're not getting through your head. The court ruled that saluting the flag, or not, was protected free speech. The refusal to salute the flag has NOTHING to do with religious freedom. It is about freedom of speech. As so eloquently explained in this analysis:

Though the Flag Salute Cases are generally seen as involving freedom of religion, that issue is virtually absent from Jackson's majority opinion.....Rather than grounding his opinion in terms of freedom of religion, Jackson analyzed the case as one of freedom of speech and expression. He argued that the flag salute--or the refusal to salute the flag--was "a form of utterance," and thus subject to the standard free speech analysis. he noted that the flag was a political symbol and, naturally, saluting that symbol was symbolic speech: 'Symbolism is the primitive but effective way of communicating ideas. The use of an emblem of flag to symbolize some system, idea, institution, or personality, is a short cur from mind to mind.'"

I doubt that you've actually read the decision, because if you had, you'd have noticed that the the third point listed in the syllabus clearly states "That those who refused compliance did so on religious grounds does not control the decision of this question."

Again, despite the fact that the court specifically ruled that the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment applies to states, this was actually a free speech issue, and when they mentioned religion they actually were talking about something else.

Uh, great. So you admit that the case you're trying to cite as precedent here actually has nothing to do with what you're trying to claim it supports.

Your assertion that cases that are universally recognized as being pivotal religious rights issues have nothing to do with religion does not make them have nothing to do with religion.

What makes them have nothing to do with religion is the fact that THE CASES WERE NOT DECIDED BASED UPON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM CLAIMS, THEY WERE DECIDED BASED ON FREE SPEECH PROTECTIONS. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROTECTIONS DID NOT FACTOR INTO THE OUTCOME OF THE CASES.

 

[Texanmike]

Can you point out anywhere I said that the courts have absolute power? Or where I even implied that the government has it? Article two lays out what the court has original jurisdiction over. Congress has the power to assign appellate jurisdiction to anyone it wants, and it delegated it to the federal court system, including the Supreme Court. It also has the power to expand the federal court original jurisdiction to things not mentioned in the constitution, like reviewing federal and state laws. Believe it or not, it also has the power to strip the courts jurisdiction from those areas if it wants.

If the bolded is the case then it does have unlimited power. If Congress may grant authority to the courts that is not defined by the Constitution (which is by definition unconstitutional) then the federal government has absolute power. I see nowhere that says that Congress may assign any additional Jurisdiction. In fact, the reason I brought up the 11th Amendment was that the Marshall (I think, I'll look it up) court went outside the boundaries described in Section 2 and so congress wrote passed and the states ratified an amendment to put SCOTUS in check. Unfortunately Marshall did what he did and found another loophole.

Where do you find the authority for Congress to redefine the Judicial branch of the federal government's authority without amending the Constitution? Don't quote some SCJ, give me where in the Constitution it says that. I've read it thousands of times and never seen it.

Mike

I guess you forgot this part of the constitution.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

That means that, if it is necessary and proper, Congress has the authority to not only write laws, but actually to give the Judicial branch, and the Executive, powers they do not have, like, as an example, judging federal criminal cases. Congress actually has the Constitutional authority to do it, amazing.

If you want to argue that it has actually overstepped the authority given to it and expanded its powers into areas it shouldn't have I will be right there with you. You cannot, however, argue that Congress doesn't actually have the power to expand the federal judiciary into areas that are not mentioned in the constitution. One I am pretty sure no one will argue about is the power to set up tax courts, something that is not actually in the constitution, yet clearly within the authority of Congress, and clearly necessary and proper.

By the way, for those who think that this gives Congress a lot of power, the necessary and proper clause is actually a single test that clearly limits the power of the government.

No. That is not what it means. It means that congress shall have the authority to write laws to execute the foregoing powers (the enumerated powers) and all of the powers vested in the government by the Constitution. It does not say, to expand the powers, it says to execute the powers vested... The only way for congress to modify the authority of a branch is listed in article 5.

Mike

 

[Inthemiddle]

I've been reading that thread as well and as far as I can remember, I am the only conservative that has participated in both threads and my position has been the same in both threads. Edit: I suppose I should clarify this statement as there may be more than one of those threads. The one I have been reading was started by del and here is a link to it:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/209769-gay-dallas-judge-wont-perform-straight-marriages.html

There were other conservatives participating in that thread who had opinions differing from mine though.

Can you please tell me which conservatives you are talking about who participated in both? I'm not saying that you are wrong yet, just that I don't recall a conservative besides myself participating in both threads.

My position: The judge has the right not to perform marriages and if her employers think that she should perform them, then they have the right to remove her from the bench.

The pharmacist has the right not to dispense Plan B. If he is an employee of the Pharmacy then his employer has the right to decide whether or not to continue to employ him.

Immie

Yes, you've been consistent. But I think you missed my point. Not to mention the fact that I'm not throwing you into the wing-nut category. At least, not yet, so I hope you don't disappoint me. If you go find what Rabbi has been saying in that thread, perhaps you'll understand what I'm saying better.

 

[Syphon]

It is not my definition or yours that matters. It is what the definition was and what was meant by the people who ratified the Constitution. The reason the Commerce clause was introduced was because of controversy over the Potomac River (circa 1784-1787). Virginia was trying to tax all goods that went over the river from Maryland. Commerce did not mean regulate goods, it was the transportation of goods that the writers and ratifiers of the Constitution understood the word to mean. It was specifically to prevent the states from taxing goods as they crossed state lines. It wasn't until the Marshall court (mid 1820's) that the commerce clause was ever interpreted to mean anything else. He interpreted it almost correctly but said something in his opinion (this is all from memory, look up the opinion on Gibbons v. Ogden for the intimate details. I have to go to bed in a min or I would do it for you). He actually overturned the authority of the FG to interfere but was kind of vague. Using his words (roughly 50 years later) they inspected steamboats cargo going from state to state using the Commerce clause. 90 years after the Commerce clause was written, somebody had a new interpretation.

Mike

did you happen to know any of the founding fathers personally? since you didnt, it is left up to the courts to decide exactly what the commerce clause means. the commerce clause has come to mean that regulation of goods and services that cross state lines.

and those are not my definitions, those are the accepted definitions from websters. so you diagree with websters?

I've read letters back and forth between them as well as speeches and diaries. I don't mean a few, I mean hundreds, maybe thousands. I might not know them personally but I know what the arguments were. Tell me. Why, if the Commerce clause was meant to allow the inspection of goods between states, did it take almost a century for it to be practiced?

I don't disagree with Webster's (though you should really use the OED) modern day definition. I tell you what I will do. I have a couple of dictionaries from 1770 through 1800. I will get them out, photograph them and put a few definitions up for you. Does the fact that a words meaning might have changed over the last 230 years mean that the intent of the contract changed?

Want an example? State. Trace the entomology. You will find something interesting. You know, like how the word Statesman hasn't morphed along with the meaning for the word State?

I'm a research fiend. My opinions have changed vastly over the last 4-5 years. I did not find at all what I expected to find and had I not done the research I would probably hold the same opinions I did.

Mike

its a good questions as to why it took that long before it took the fed to apply the commerce clause they way it was used today. but its also interesting that the we used to have slavery in a country built on freedom. you the whole life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness thing.

since the courts have ruled that the commerce clause can apply to these situations, then it is fact. this is like me disagreeing with the citizens united ruling. i disagree with it, but that doesnt make it illegal.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Let me get this straight, the court specifically ruling that there is a religious exemption to being required to salute the flag means they actually meant it is a free speech issue and that the religious exemption doesn't actually exist.

The court DID NOT rule on religious freedom. That's what you're not getting through your head. The court ruled that saluting the flag, or not, was protected free speech. The refusal to salute the flag has NOTHING to do with religious freedom. It is about freedom of speech. As so eloquently explained in this analysis:

Though the Flag Salute Cases are generally seen as involving freedom of religion, that issue is virtually absent from Jackson's majority opinion.....Rather than grounding his opinion in terms of freedom or religion, Jackson analysed the case as one of freedom of speech and expresssion. He argued that the flag salute--or the refusal to salute teh flag--was "a form of utterance," and thus subject to the standard free speech analyssi. he noted that teh flag was a political symbol and, naturally, saluting that symbol was symbolic speech: 'Symbolism is the primitive but effective way of communicating ideas. The use of an emblem of flag to symbolize some system, idea, insistutuion, or personality, is a short cur from mind to mind.'"

I doubt that you've actually read the decision, because if you had, you'd have noticed that the the third point listed in the syllabus clearly states "That those who refused compliance did so on religious grounds does not control the decision of this question."

Again, despite the fact that the court specifically ruled that the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment applies to states, this was actually a free speech issue, and when they mentioned religion they actually were talking about something else.

Uh, great. So you admit that the case you're trying to cite as precedent here actually has nothing to do with what you're trying to claim it supports.

Your assertion that cases that are universally recognized as being pivotal religious rights issues have nothing to do with religion does not make them have nothing to do with religion.

What makes them have nothing to do with religion is the fact that THE CASES WERE NOT DECIDED BASED UPON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM CLAIMS, THEY WERE DECIDED BASED ON FREE SPEECH PROTECTIONS. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROTECTIONS DID NOT FACTOR INTO THE OUTCOME OF THE CASES.

They didn't?

You might want to inform the ACLU.

"While religion supplies appellees' motive for enduring the discomforts of making the issue in this case, many citizens who do not share these religious views hold such a compulsory rite to infringe constitutional liberty of the individual... Free public education, if faithful to the ideal of secular instruction and political neutrality, will not be partisan or enemy of any class, creed, party, or faction... We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent. Authority here is to be controlled by public opinion, not public opinion by authority.
If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us. We think the action of the local authorities in compelling the flag salute and pledge transcends constitutional limitations on their power and invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control."
The US Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.

http://aclu.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=331


I notice that you are still ignoring the decisions that clearly contradict your assertion that religious liberty issues are strictly limited to issues directly involving religion. Just because cases that are about religion can cover issues that go beyond religion does not mean that religion is in any way limited by the government.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If the bolded is the case then it does have unlimited power. If Congress may grant authority to the courts that is not defined by the Constitution (which is by definition unconstitutional) then the federal government has absolute power. I see nowhere that says that Congress may assign any additional Jurisdiction. In fact, the reason I brought up the 11th Amendment was that the Marshall (I think, I'll look it up) court went outside the boundaries described in Section 2 and so congress wrote passed and the states ratified an amendment to put SCOTUS in check. Unfortunately Marshall did what he did and found another loophole.

Where do you find the authority for Congress to redefine the Judicial branch of the federal government's authority without amending the Constitution? Don't quote some SCJ, give me where in the Constitution it says that. I've read it thousands of times and never seen it.

Mike

I guess you forgot this part of the constitution.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

That means that, if it is necessary and proper, Congress has the authority to not only write laws, but actually to give the Judicial branch, and the Executive, powers they do not have, like, as an example, judging federal criminal cases. Congress actually has the Constitutional authority to do it, amazing.

If you want to argue that it has actually overstepped the authority given to it and expanded its powers into areas it shouldn't have I will be right there with you. You cannot, however, argue that Congress doesn't actually have the power to expand the federal judiciary into areas that are not mentioned in the constitution. One I am pretty sure no one will argue about is the power to set up tax courts, something that is not actually in the constitution, yet clearly within the authority of Congress, and clearly necessary and proper.

By the way, for those who think that this gives Congress a lot of power, the necessary and proper clause is actually a single test that clearly limits the power of the government.

No. That is not what it means. It means that congress shall have the authority to write laws to execute the foregoing powers (the enumerated powers) and all of the powers vested in the government by the Constitution. It does not say, to expand the powers, it says to execute the powers vested... The only way for congress to modify the authority of a branch is listed in article 5.

Mike

Hey, genius, that is what I said. If you agree with me why are you acting like you don't? Are you one of those nuts that thinks the income tax is unconstitutional?

 

[Inthemiddle]

They didn't?

You might want to inform the ACLU.

"While religion supplies appellees' motive for enduring the discomforts of making the issue in this case, many citizens who do not share these religious views hold such a compulsory rite to infringe constitutional liberty of the individual... Free public education, if faithful to the ideal of secular instruction and political neutrality, will not be partisan or enemy of any class, creed, party, or faction... We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent. Authority here is to be controlled by public opinion, not public opinion by authority.
If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us. We think the action of the local authorities in compelling the flag salute and pledge transcends constitutional limitations on their power and invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control."
The US Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.

What does any of that have to do with anything? Nothing there changes, or even alleges to the contrary, the fact that the court's decision was one of FREE SPEECH.

I notice that you are still ignoring the decisions that clearly contradict your assertion that religious liberty issues are strictly limited to issues directly involving religion.

YOUR NOT FUCKING POSTING ANYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just because cases that are about religion can cover issues that go beyond religion does not mean that religion is in any way limited by the government.

When did anyone say that? The point is that if you are going to claim that the courts have recognized certain matters as protected on the grounds of religious freedom, YOU MUST PRESENT CASES THAT HAVE BEEN DECIDED ON THE GROUNDS OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. Cases that are decided on grounds of free speech do not establish precedents for religious freedom claims.

 

[Texanmike]

did you happen to know any of the founding fathers personally? since you didnt, it is left up to the courts to decide exactly what the commerce clause means. the commerce clause has come to mean that regulation of goods and services that cross state lines.

and those are not my definitions, those are the accepted definitions from websters. so you diagree with websters?

I've read letters back and forth between them as well as speeches and diaries. I don't mean a few, I mean hundreds, maybe thousands. I might not know them personally but I know what the arguments were. Tell me. Why, if the Commerce clause was meant to allow the inspection of goods between states, did it take almost a century for it to be practiced?

I don't disagree with Webster's (though you should really use the OED) modern day definition. I tell you what I will do. I have a couple of dictionaries from 1770 through 1800. I will get them out, photograph them and put a few definitions up for you. Does the fact that a words meaning might have changed over the last 230 years mean that the intent of the contract changed?

Want an example? State. Trace the entomology. You will find something interesting. You know, like how the word Statesman hasn't morphed along with the meaning for the word State?

I'm a research fiend. My opinions have changed vastly over the last 4-5 years. I did not find at all what I expected to find and had I not done the research I would probably hold the same opinions I did.

Mike

its a good questions as to why it took that long before it took the fed to apply the commerce clause they way it was used today. but its also interesting that the we used to have slavery in a country built on freedom. you the whole life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness thing.

since the courts have ruled that the commerce clause can apply to these situations, then it is fact. this is like me disagreeing with the citizens united ruling. i disagree with it, but that doesnt make it illegal.

One more point and then I'm going to bed. It happened because people became disassociated with the original Constitution. A lot of it had to do with the way people from other countries immigrated to this country. They viewed themselves as immigrating to a Sovereign country, not a sovereign state. It is also the result of case law precedence. We borrowed some things from the British common law (go look up High Crimes in a British law book from 1780, you'd be surprised what you find... Chase should have been impeached and found guilty, that would have changed the entire history of the country.)

One of the big shortcomings of the Constitution (and yes there were a lot of people who were concerned about it. Oddly enough at the Virginia ratification debates the federalists guaranteed it wouldn't happen) was that the Supreme Court was given no accountability to the States. That one loophole along with the misrepresentation of the term "High Crimes" to the senate during the Chase impeachment proceedings allowed SCJs to be unaffected and unaccountable to the states and to the will of the nation. And I guess it depends on what you consider to be legal. I'm not advocating a violent overthrow or a revolution or anything but George III declared that Parliament had absolute legislative authority over the entire British empire. It wasn't actually the case. Just because people in power declare something to be legal, while it may carry the same effect as law, does not make it legal. I mean a lot of our discussions are about whether or not a certain level of government has the authority to do something.

As for the slavery thing, it is certainly a dark spot on our nations history. It is ironic but a lot of people didn't see them as free people. It is an unfathomable position to you and I today, I know, but there would be no chance that the states would have voted to abolish slavery. Jefferson wrote at length later in life about his regret that slavery had not been abolished.

A quick side note that you may or may not know. Lincoln, the great emancipator, was a proponent of deportation of the former slaves. Not everyone was able to act on their every wish because some of our decisions are regrettably tied to what the public will tolerate.

Mike

 

[Texanmike]

I guess you forgot this part of the constitution.

That means that, if it is necessary and proper, Congress has the authority to not only write laws, but actually to give the Judicial branch, and the Executive, powers they do not have, like, as an example, judging federal criminal cases. Congress actually has the Constitutional authority to do it, amazing.

If you want to argue that it has actually overstepped the authority given to it and expanded its powers into areas it shouldn't have I will be right there with you. You cannot, however, argue that Congress doesn't actually have the power to expand the federal judiciary into areas that are not mentioned in the constitution. One I am pretty sure no one will argue about is the power to set up tax courts, something that is not actually in the constitution, yet clearly within the authority of Congress, and clearly necessary and proper.

By the way, for those who think that this gives Congress a lot of power, the necessary and proper clause is actually a single test that clearly limits the power of the government.

No. That is not what it means. It means that congress shall have the authority to write laws to execute the foregoing powers (the enumerated powers) and all of the powers vested in the government by the Constitution. It does not say, to expand the powers, it says to execute the powers vested... The only way for congress to modify the authority of a branch is listed in article 5.

Mike

Hey, genius, that is what I said. If you agree with me why are you acting like you don't? Are you one of those nuts that thinks the income tax is unconstitutional?

No. I'm not. And no, I don't agree with you. Congress cannot make a law which grants a branch of the government authority (or jurisdiction) that is not already stated in the Constitution. The only way to do that is to amend the Constitution. That is listed in article V.

Mike

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They didn't?

You might want to inform the ACLU.

"While religion supplies appellees' motive for enduring the discomforts of making the issue in this case, many citizens who do not share these religious views hold such a compulsory rite to infringe constitutional liberty of the individual... Free public education, if faithful to the ideal of secular instruction and political neutrality, will not be partisan or enemy of any class, creed, party, or faction... We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent. Authority here is to be controlled by public opinion, not public opinion by authority.
If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us. We think the action of the local authorities in compelling the flag salute and pledge transcends constitutional limitations on their power and invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control."
The US Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.

What does any of that have to do with anything? Nothing there changes, or even alleges to the contrary, the fact that the court's decision was one of FREE SPEECH.

I notice that you are still ignoring the decisions that clearly contradict your assertion that religious liberty issues are strictly limited to issues directly involving religion.

YOUR NOT FUCKING POSTING ANYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just because cases that are about religion can cover issues that go beyond religion does not mean that religion is in any way limited by the government.

When did anyone say that? The point is that if you are going to claim that the courts have recognized certain matters as protected on the grounds of religious freedom, YOU MUST PRESENT CASES THAT HAVE BEEN DECIDED ON THE GROUNDS OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. Cases that are decided on grounds of free speech do not establish precedents for religious freedom claims.

I think you need some more exclamation points.

Once again, what about Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church v. EEOC? Can you explain how, if religious liberty only applies directly to religion, a religious exemption to employment law exists for schools?

Anything?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No. That is not what it means. It means that congress shall have the authority to write laws to execute the foregoing powers (the enumerated powers) and all of the powers vested in the government by the Constitution. It does not say, to expand the powers, it says to execute the powers vested... The only way for congress to modify the authority of a branch is listed in article 5.

Mike

Hey, genius, that is what I said. If you agree with me why are you acting like you don't? Are you one of those nuts that thinks the income tax is unconstitutional?

No. I'm not. And no, I don't agree with you. Congress cannot make a law which grants a branch of the government authority (or jurisdiction) that is not already stated in the Constitution. The only way to do that is to amend the Constitution. That is listed in article V.

Mike

Sure it can, as long as doing so falls within its enumerated powers, or is granted to it through a Constitutional Amendment. If it was actually impossible, like you claim, we would not have the IRS or the Tax court.

I repeat my question, are you one of those nuts who thinks the income tax is unconstitutional?

 

[Texanmike]

Hey, genius, that is what I said. If you agree with me why are you acting like you don't? Are you one of those nuts that thinks the income tax is unconstitutional?

No. I'm not. And no, I don't agree with you. Congress cannot make a law which grants a branch of the government authority (or jurisdiction) that is not already stated in the Constitution. The only way to do that is to amend the Constitution. That is listed in article V.

Mike

Sure it can, as long as doing so falls within its enumerated powers, or is granted to it through a Constitutional Amendment.

Please give me an example. Maybe I'm not understanding what you are saying. If you are referring to the creation of inferior federal courts, article III section 2 binds what they may preside over, article III section 2 even mentions them in the definition.

I already answered your question. No, I'm not.

Mike

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No. I'm not. And no, I don't agree with you. Congress cannot make a law which grants a branch of the government authority (or jurisdiction) that is not already stated in the Constitution. The only way to do that is to amend the Constitution. That is listed in article V.

Mike

Sure it can, as long as doing so falls within its enumerated powers, or is granted to it through a Constitutional Amendment.

Please give me an example. Maybe I'm not understanding what you are saying. If you are referring to the creation of inferior federal courts, article III section 2 binds what they may preside over, article III section 2 even mentions them in the definition.

I already answered your question. No, I'm not.

Mike

The IRS exist because a Constitutional Amendment gave Congress the power to directly tax the states without returning the money proportionately. Congress obviously could not handle collecting the taxes, so they wrote a law that gave the Executive branch the power to collect it, and they wrote another law creating the tax court, which is in their enumerated powers. Both of these expanded the powers of another branch of government to something that is not originally part of their constitutional authority, both are constitutional, and both are covered by the necessary and proper clause.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Once again, what about Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church v. EEOC? Can you explain how, if religious liberty only applies directly to religion, a religious exemption to employment law exists for schools?

Anything?

Why do you keep referencing cases you obviously haven't read. That case deals with MINISTERS employed by the church. The church's selection of ministers, and serving as a minister, is an inherently religious activity, donchathink?

The court held that freedom of religion bars a minister from bringing suit against a former employer-church, on the basis of discrimination. This makes perfect sense, because the constitution prohibits the government from interfering with churches selection of their own ministers. Applying such relevant statutes to the church under the specific issue of the church selecting its ministers, as well as a court issuing an order to reinstate such a minister against the church's wishes, would constitute direct interference by the government in explicitly religious realms, regarding inherently religious activities. It is completely consistent with everything I have said. As the court said, "By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the Free Exercise Clause, which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments. According the state the power to determine which individuals will minister to the faithful also violates the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions."