"NO HITS FOR YOU!"
Posted on 03/01/2012 10:13:23 AM PST by landsbaum
By 51-48 the Senate today killed the amendment to allow employers to refuse to cover health services when it conflicts with religious convictions, giving the Obama administration another victory in its steady march to undermine constitutional rights with administrative mandates.
. . . This is all but inevitable as the government assumes more and more authority over of what people should be doing for themselves.
And, perhaps worst of all, the orders come from faceless, unaccountable bureaucrats who make this stuff up to suit their political ideology. As we noted on Sunday, this is where the Administrative State takes us.
(Excerpt) Read more at orangepunch.ocregister.com ...
NOW who thinks judicial review of the Constitutionality of legislation is a bad thing, not a protector of our rights, and not Constitutional?
???????
What other hope is there when a President and Congress pass legislation that tramples our guaranteed natural rights?
Other than recourse to arms?
"NO HITS FOR YOU!"
If this becomes the law of the land, the bishops need to close down all Catholic insitutions other than the exempted churches and either start from scratch relying on volunteers as in the days gone by or hire only Catholics and provide services exclusively for Catholics.
Let the radical left figure out how they are going to pick up the slack.
And to those radical leftist Catholic-in-name-only “priests,” and “theologians,” who try to inflict their little psycho-prod Marxist “conscientization” twaddle on us ( i.e. “concern for the poor” ) in order to persuade us to burn a pinch of incense to Caesar, my response is to cite the words of Our Lord who said that “the poor would always be with us.....” meaning that while we have a duty to the poor, every duty should be done in its place and the duty now incumbent upon us is to defend our religious freedom lest we cease to be able to worship Christ as we ought.......a worship which itself mandates an altruistic, charitable regard for the poor and not merely the kind of manipulative secularist counterfeit which would aggressively pressure “the poor” into selling their consciences for bread.
In Catholic moral theology, you cannot use evil means to produce a good end, because if you do, the evil means poisons everything in such a way that even the end becomes evil.
51 Seantors have knowingly violated their oaths of office.
The rule of law no longer applies in this nation.
If this becomes the law of the land, the bishops need to close down all Catholic insitutions other than the exempted churches and either start from scratch relying on volunteers as in the days gone by or hire only Catholics and provide services exclusively for Catholics.
Let the radical left figure out how they are going to pick up the slack.
And to those radical leftist Catholic-in-name-only “priests,” and “theologians,” who try to inflict their little psycho-prod Marxist “conscientization” twaddle on us ( i.e. “concern for the poor” ) in order to persuade us to burn a pinch of incense to Caesar, my response is to cite the words of Our Lord who said that “the poor would always be with us.....” meaning that while we have a duty to the poor, every duty should be done in its place and the duty now incumbent upon us is to defend our religious freedom lest we cease to be able to worship Christ as we ought.......a worship which itself mandates an altruistic, charitable regard for the poor and not merely the kind of manipulative secularist counterfeit which would aggressively pressure “the poor” into selling their consciences for bread.
In Catholic moral theology, you cannot use evil means to produce a good end, because if you do, the evil means poisons everything in such a way that even the end becomes evil.
A false choice. The Judicial Branch of course has a constitutional role. The problem is that some members of the judicial branch think it is their duty to legislate. This will be an easy one, just like the last one. I’d guess at least 7 votes to smack Obama and Holder silly with Scalia writing for the majority. They just ruled against Obama 9-0 on ministerial exceptions for anti discrimination laws and this one will be no different.
I was wondering how many NOW took, or are willing to take, that position in regard to judicial review of Obamacare.
Striking down legislation is not legislating. When a Judge (or Judges) strike down legislation - then WRITE the law that will replace it - or WRITE any sort of judicial remedy other than simply striking down the law - that is “legislating from the bench”.
Striking down a law as Unconstitutional is not legislating, and it IS (in my opinion) the proper role of the Courts and one of the few recourses (besides arms) that citizens have in answer to a Presidency and a Congress prone to pass legislation that tramples our guaranteed natural rights.
Incomplete. Striking down an unconstitutional law is not legislating. Striking down a constitutional law is legislating and there has been plenty of that.
Striking down a law isn't not legislative if you agree with the Court on the Constitutionality of the law - and legislative if you disagree.
Striking down a law is not writing a law. It is telling the Legislature (Congress) that “nice try, now back to the drawing board” - for CONGRESS to rewrite the law, or not, based upon the findings of the Court as to the troublesome aspects of the law.
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.