Hope that I am not disappointed, but am tired of the Politically Privilaged Nazi's running over the rest of the nation.
May this be the beginning of a serious examination of the extent and authority of the subservient Federal Court system.
Too many laws that are selectively enforced to a political agenda. Shift authority back to States on many matters and Examine and Downsize the Federal Court System.
The outcome should be foreordained; “Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”.
We’ll have to wait to see how it actually comes to pass.
“AN ACT to provide for the division of Dakota into two States and to enable the people of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington to form constitutions and State governments and to be admitted into the Union
....
That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured and that no inhabitant of said States shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship.”
http://leg.wa.gov/History/State/Pages/enabling.aspx
The permanent requirement for “perfect toleration of religious sentiment” was typically required by Congress for statehood.
We only have 3 conservatives on the court, I am not optimistic.
I have never understood how courts could compare a custom-designed wedding cake to something like a box of ready-made cupcakes. No baker would deny a gay customer who wants to buy some of the day’s output of ready-made cupcakes. But to force an artisan to sit and consult with the Bible-denying couple about their plans and dreams for their ideal wedding cake and then not just take the many days and hundreds of steps to bake and decorate it, but also to deliver it in their truck with the name of their bakery on the side, and help to set it up in the venue — that is humiliation and slavery.
The Roberts court seems to like giving 3/4 of an apple to a victor. In the Cake Case, how will they split it?
I expect them to affirm the right of the store to deny specific messaging, but agree that the bakers have to sell the cakes. Something like that.
Given the remote possibility that you haven’t already seen the following information, you might find it interesting.
Regarding political privileges, note that the Founding States made the Constitution’s Clause 1 of Section 10 of Article I to prohibit themselves from establishing privileged / protected classes.
"Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility [emphasis added]".
But this is what misguided, low-information, pro-LGBT activist state officials are effectively doing with respect to pushing politically correct LGBT “rights” imo.
Also, when the states ratified the 14th Amendment, they prohibited themselves from abridging the freedoms that they amend the Constitution to expressly protect, so-called LGBT “rights” not among those enumerated rights.
”14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
So, misguided, LGBT activist states are not only probably violating the Nobility Clause, but also violating the 14th Amendment imo.
In fact, patriots who value 1st Amendment-protected religious expression should note that Acts 22:25-29 indicates that Paul claimed his protections as a Roman citizen to save himself from being flogged.
Finally, consider that another major problem related to constitutional rights is this. Regardless that Congress has the 14th Amendment power to strengthen constitutionally enumerated rights, the corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification Congress just sat on its hands during the lawless Obama Administration while several states abridged the constitutionally enumerated rights of religious expression and speech.
Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!
Remember in November ’18 !
Since Trump entered the ’16 presidential race too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the ’18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.
Such a Congress will also be able to finish draining the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring, activist Supreme Court justices off of the bench.
In fact, if Justice Gorsuch turns out to be a liberal Trojan Horse then we will need 67 patriot senators to remove a House-impeached Gorsuch from office.
Noting that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire in February ‘18, patriots need to challenge candidates for federal office in the following way.
While I Googled the primary information above concerning Iowa and New Hampshire, FReeper iowamark brought to my attention that the February primaries for these states apply only to presidential election years. And after doing some more scratching, since primary dates for most states for 2018 elections probably haven’t been uploaded at this time (March 14, 2017), FReepers will need to find out primary dates from sources and / or websites in their own states.
Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.
Patriots also need to find candidates that are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed below.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphasis added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Praying that Kennedy will be a bad memory by then and Gorsuch II will be on the court.
This has the potential, although very unlikely, to undo the absolutely pernicious "civil 'rights'" mandates of the 1960's as they apply to private businesses, clubs and other associations. I can dream.
I recommend that all Christians concerned about these issues read “The Benedict Option” by Rod Dreher.
Will we have a new conservative justice by the fall, Ms. Ginsburg?
A ruling for the bakers would pull the teeth right out of the gay marriage ruling. Anyone could claim a religious objection and not have to preside or work with a homosexual marriage. We can only hope the ruling goes that way. It will take a Kennedy retirement and Gorsuch-like replacement to have any hope of success.
How is forcing someone to bake a cake in a kitchen against their wishes any different than forcing someone to pick cotton in a field against their wishes?
-PJ