Posted on 10/16/2014 7:10:29 PM PDT by This Just In
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott on Wednesday called on Houston Mayor Annise Parker and City Attorney David Feldman to relent on subpoenas demanding pastors’ sermons and private communications.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldmag.com ...
Yes, which is to say that it is our representatives duty to PROTECT our constitutional rights. If an American citizen is denied these liberties by our local government, we have just cause to pursue litigation.
The filing DOES NOT enable the local or federal government to violate their constitutional rights under the First Amendment, which is way the pastors have legal representation. Furthermore, the mayor is clearly retaliating after the pastors organized the petition drive.
This has nothing to do with the IRS 501 c3.
There have been a couple of Freepers who have tried to highjack the discussion in an attempt to use the tax code issue as a plausible argument in this case. It is not, which is why the mayor is now backpedaling and lying about her actions.
I understand your point of view. I agree that churches should not file, but the fact that they do does not mean that they relinquish their rights as American citizens.
Thank you AG Abbott
No, there is a HUGE difference between being prohibited from interefering with free exercise and being given the power to ENFORCE it. Regardless of personal opinion the First Amendment gives NO POWER to Congress to enforce it. When we start trying to change the Constitution, America’s Rule of Law, to conform with our personal wishes or morality, we create instead the Rule of Man, what the Left does and we tear down the ONLY legal bulwark between us and tyranny.
If enough of us think the Constitution should be changed, then the Constitution itself has given is the means to change it - not by activism - but by the amendment process.
In the meantime, if you look at the greatest threat to our freedom to choose according to our values, whether free exercise, marriage, or abortion, the threat is not the states, it is the federal government. You do NOT want to give the feds the power to decide the issue of free exercise just like you do not want them to decide about things like marriage or abortion, all of which is NONE of the feds business.
No, free exercise, like bearing arms, marriage, and abortion, is a states’ issue. The Constitution favors LOCAL (state and individual) GOVERNANCE and is against central command and control. The people of each state must decide these issues for themselves. And without any exception that I know of, every state has all of these issue in their State Constitutions that harmonize with the rights and freedoms reflected in the U.S. Constitution.
Again, the problem is not the states. The problem and great threat is the federal government who unconstitutionally is always trying to negate state constitutional law like negating prohibition of abortions or negating free exercise because of some stupid racial excuse, etc. The feds have no constitutional say in these issues, and we need to keep it that way.
I hope Governor-Elect Abbot can figure out a way to curb these liberal pigs on the local level.
18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law, and
18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights
Yes, I know, he's state and doesn't have federal jurisdiction, but how much you want to bet he knows federal prosecutors and/or grand juries?
(Grand juries should really exercise their powers of presentment more often, especially against government officials.)
Again, keep the litigation in the state courts because your state constitution already protects free exercise.
You and I are in agreement on this.
The prohibition isn’t just on the Federal Government.
All government, including state and local, is prohibited from interfering.
Does this even have to be said?
WTH is wrong with the American People?
If you ever wondered how the German People so easily followed Hitler into the Abyss, wonder no more.
No, read the First Amendment. It is ONLY a prohibition on CONGRESS, not the states.
When will people realize that the feds are not their friend? You give the feds unconstitutional power like this and what happens next? The feds overturn state anti-abortion laws and force gay marriages on the states. They WILL take away your free exercise rights if you give them the chance. And letting them unconstitutionally enforce free exercise gives them that chance.
Me too.
I’m glad. Too many are confused about this. That needs to change if we’re going to continue to be a free people.
I’m of the opinion that there are a number of Americans who fail to see the danger in states relinquishing their autonomy from the federal government. Unfortunately a large portion of the population fails to understand the role of the federal government.
IMO, it is fundamentally a spiritual issue. Many have turned from God. Instead of faith in God and the mainstay for freedom, they have faith in man and the federal government which is the road to serfdom and tyranny.
To sustain bravery, one must have faith in God IMO because with faith in God, one is not controlled by the fear of death in opposing tyranny. And to be the land of the free, we must be the home of the brave.
No, prosecute her for civil rights violations! Arrest the Fag-Freak and burn her.
Give? The Feds take whatever power they want and a corrupt Judiciary aids in the destruction of the Constitution. If we get mad enough we can change the party in power, but they never relinquish the powers that the other party grabbed.
Remember how we grabbed up all those evil doctors from Germany and Japan after WW II? Do you suppose we destroyed all that evil stuff they dreamed up? Uh, no.
It was a great question after WW II, pondered by myself and millions of others, but I no longer wonder because we can see it with our own eyes. The fact that any Senate race is even in doubt tells us all we need to know.
“There have been a couple of Freepers who have tried to highjack the discussion”
I don’t believe they are trying to hijack the discussion. I believe they honestly believe that the 501c3 is a handle that the government can use against them. And I agree with this position.
“I agree that churches should not file, but the fact that they do does not mean that they relinquish their rights as American citizens.”
You must be aware that you have just equated churches with American citizens. A church is not an American citizen. A church is made up of individuals, and in America more than likely American citizens. Your enthymeme syllogism is a fallacy based on the false equivocating of the two subjects. You cannot take a general (churches) and equivocate it to a particular (individual). This will lead to a false conclusion by the incorrect use of the undistributed middle.
A legal entity such as a 501c3 church is bound by certain criteria as defined by the IRS. But individuals, not acting in a representative manner for the 501c3 church, are not bound by the 501c3 IRS criteria.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.