Posted on 03/30/2016 7:13:12 AM PDT by Kaslin
Many reporters attending oral arguments in the Supreme Court sit in assigned chairs on the far left side of the chamber.
These chairs stand behind a double row of massive marble columns. Brass gates, some opened and some closed, stretch between the columns; burgundy curtains, pulled back by cords, hang behind them.
Given their assigned seats, some reporters may not be able to see any of the justices holding forth at the front of the chamber.
All they hear are their voices.
Because the court only releases a transcript and audio recording of its arguments, the only Americans who definitely can see the faces of these justices as they bicker about the law -- and our God-given rights -- are those in the very small group granted entry into the central space of the chamber.
So it was last week, when the voice of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke up early in the oral arguments in Zubik v. Burwell.
This case carries the last names of the Catholic bishop of Pittsburgh (David A. Zubik) and President Barack Obama's secretary of Health and Human Services (Sylvia Burwell).
From the secular sanctuary beyond the columns and curtains, Ginsburg seemed to make a telling concession.
"No one doubts for a moment the sincerity of the belief of your client and all the others," she said to lawyer Paul Clement, who was representing, among others, the Little Sisters of the Poor.
"And since sincerity of their belief is accepted, it's off the table," said Ginsburg.
One of the beliefs Catholic organizations presented in Zubik was summarized in a brief presented by, among others, the Diocese of Pittsburgh: "Petitioners believe that in order to stay true to their Catholic faith, they may hire an insurance company only if it will not provide their students and employees with coverage that may destroy human life or artificially prevent its creation."
The Obamacare regulation at issue in Zubik mandates that Catholic organizations do this -- or give up all health insurance for their employees and be fined.
The court, Justice Ginsburg seemed to signal, was not going to argue with the Catholic Church about what is and is not consistent with the Catholic faith.
But the voice of Justice Sonia Sotomayor presented another question: How can the government function if it cannot demand people do things they believe will damn their souls?
"Because every believer that's ever come before us, including the people in the military, are saying that my soul will be damned in some way," said Sotomayor.
"I'm not naysaying that that is a very substantial perceived personal burden by them," she said. "But if that's always going to be substantial, how will we ever have a government that functions? How will we ever have anything that the government can demand people to do in objecting ... that won't be a problem?"
The First Amendment itself answers Sotomayor's question: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
When federal regulators force Catholics to buy or provide health insurance plans that cover sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs and devices they are denying Catholics the "free exercise" of religion guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.
But, according to the Supreme Court's official transcript, not one voice in the court during the oral arguments in Zubik used the term "free exercise" of religion.
That is because the court will not decide this case using the language and meaning of the First Amendment. It will decide using the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.
"Government," says that act, "may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."
In the Hobby Lobby case two years ago, a 5-4 majority (including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sam Alito, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia) ruled that the Obamacare regulation was a substantial burden on the religious exercise of Hobby Lobby's owners, who did not want to cover abortifacients. But that majority also "assumed" the government was furthering a compelling interest with the regulation.
Where the government failed in Hobby Lobby was in convincing five justices that it was furthering its compelling interest by the least restrictive means.
To win the power to require Catholic organizations to act against the Catholic faith -- and, thus, surrender the free exercise of religion -- all the government needs is one more justice than it had in Hobby Lobby.
What America needs are more voices on the court that will defend not only the free exercise of religion but every word in the Constitution.
I recommend that everyone seek out and take the free Hillsdale College course on the Constitution on line. If you haven’t read the Constitution and Declaration of Independence you will be fascinated by the brilliance and knowledge of the founding Fathers.
The government cannot argue that it is using the least restrictive means in compelling the Little Sisters to give a permission slip to allow abortions and/or ‘contraceptives’ that are abortifacients, and abortions themselves through the policies that they provide.
They have let others out of that mandate.
They can have individuals go on their own to buy such coverage.
They haven’t begun to explore the least restrictive means of dealing with the situation.
Moreover, as the article points out, this is all subservient to the 1st amendment, ‘free exercise of religion’. Even the RFRA was carefully crafted to fit the 1st amendment.
So, to violate a ‘right’, the government must have some more compelling interest than convenience or difficulty. It really shouldn’t be at all, but it must be ‘last resort to avoid extreme national harm’. They can make no such argument.
I'm arguing this very point right now with my fellow school board members
The Pa SC in 2014 deemed it unconstitutional to open a public school board meeting with prayer because students may be in the room and that would be some kind of violation of their cupcake ears or something
I was just re-elected to 4 years and I took an oath to support, defend and uphold the Constitution of The United States AND the Constitution of Pennsylvania
I've figured out how they got around the US Constitution .... CONGRESS DIDN'T MAKE A LAW ... THE SC DETERMINED IT SO ! !
But worse ... how do I obey my own oath to defend the US Constitution when the PA constitution seems to contradict it ?
The wise Latina just confessed who she works for, who her boss is, and whose commands she follows.
In 2016's "politically correct" world, most citizens may not contemplate the intent and obligations of that "oath" office holders take.
The oath of office required for representatives of "the People" was understood by America's Founders and early generations to be sacred and binding, because that oath is a vow before the "Sovereign" of the Universe (Madison), and its violation carries penalities both human and Divine. President George Washington described it in this manner:
"Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths?"
For an amazing history lesson contained in an Address by the Rev. Benjamin W. Arnett, a Black Ohio State Legislator and A.M.E. Bishop, readers might want to visit the Library of Congress and read the entire text of his Centennial (of the Declaration of Independence) Thanksgiving Sermon, paying special note to the excerpts below which discuss and describe the nature of the oath:
From the Library of Congress: African American Perspectives: Pamphlets from the Daniel A.P.Murray Collection, 1818-1907
Centennial Thanksgiving sermon,: delivered by Rev. B.W. Arnett, B.D., at St. Paul A.M.E. Church, Urbana, Ohio
Excerpt from P. 31, in which he is discussing the Declaration of Independence:
"We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare: That these United Colonies are and of right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as Free and Independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, and in a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor." - JOHN HANCOCK.
Arnett continues:
"And the names of the whole Congress followed. You see that there is Divinity in this immortal document. Can we find in the "Articles of Confederation" anything to support the position that the founders of this government intended that it should be a nation for God, and that his religion should have a place in this land. It says: "Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual union." Thus we find this assembly thanking the Governor of the world for inclining the hearts of men. Who can move the hearts of men but God? But we find them in reverence bowing to the Governor of men.
"We now call your attention to the Constitution of the Nation and let us examine that instrument in the light of the men who formed it, and we will see that this was intended to be a Nation founded in Righteousness and Justice. What does the instrument say on this subject:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
"Article VI says: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall be required as a Qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
On Page 37, Rev. Arnett described the nature of "oaths and affirmations" as follows:
"Oaths and affirmations are appeals to God, by him who makes them, that what he has said, or what he shall say, is the truth. It is the most solemn form under which one can assert or pronounce anything, and its violation is a crime of the darkest hue; one which God has declared he will punish; one that is made infamous and punishable by fine and imprisonment, by the laws of the land. Thus Christian obligation is required of every officer of the general Government, who fills any position of trust, honor or emolument. Many reports are required in the form and shape of affidavits."
This is only the “last stand” if the sisters lose in court, and if they then do not defy the court.
The judicial power cannot extend into the legislative power; judges cannot legitimately make, amend or interpret law. They exist to adjudicate. Stand up and say the Lord's Prayer aloud at the board meeting. Watch little minds explode. You cannot be prosecuted.
Thanx for the encouragement
The government does not have a compelling interest in preventing the citizens from reproducing. Therefore, the question of the least restrictive means of accomplishing this goal is irrelevant.
On the other hand, one might that “the government,” as an entity distinct from and in opposition to “the citizens” or “the nation,” does have a compelling interest in persuading the citizens to make themselves extinct and in making it as easy and inexpensive as possible.
Keep freeperdom informed?
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.