Posted on 01/13/2017 11:20:16 AM PST by amorphous
The U.S. Supreme Court has been handed a bombshell: An appeal of a lower-court ruling that banned Christian counselors from talking with teens about the biblical standard for sexuality.
The case challenges laws that force licensed counselors to affirm homosexuality, prohibiting them from helping clients overcome same-sex attractions.
Such laws have been adopted in New Jersey, where a biased judge used it to shut down a Christian ministry, and in California and other states.
The case already was presented to the Supreme Court several years ago, but it did not get a ruling.
Now a new appeal has been submitted by the Pacific Justice Institute on behalf of two religious leaders in California and a student who was considering going into counseling.
The appeal argues affirmation of the state regulation by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ignored the fact that when lawmakers were arguing over the law, many, if not most, of their comments were specifically about religion and conservatives.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
The 9th Circus, as it is colloquially known, has been a joke since way back in the mid-70s. That’s over 45 years ... change it now and the whole country will cheer.
So, you can’t report child sex abuse?
Most homosexuals were sexually molested as children.
And now they can’t seek counseling?
But to “progressives”, remember it is a Doctor’s First Amendment right to ask your kids if there are guns in the house so the information can be recorded and put in a Federal database.
So, you can’t report child sex abuse?
Most homosexuals were sexually molested as children.
And now they can’t seek counseling?
http://www.ukcolumn.org/article/melanie-shaw-given-two-years-following-secret-court-hearing
The ninth circus is the most overturned court in the country.
So the Constitutional amendment that requires the selection of US Senators by popular vote is then unconstitutional?
Can the President simply break-up the existing 9th circus clowns by simply assigning them to other circuits?
Or are we stuck with 'once in a particular area, always in that area'?
Wrong. The Incorporation Doctrine has been tried and found wanting. As the Court in the Slaughterhouse Cases of 1873 confirmed, the intent of the 14th Amendment as a post-Civil-War reconstruction amendment, was limited to reinstating ex-slaves to full citizenship. Period. No sweeping federal powers were contemplated by the ratifiers of the 14th Amendment.
All wresting and perversion of the Constitution, as the counterfeit Incorporation Doctrine is, ALWAYS favors more and more federal power, less and less individual freedom and is why we are in the mess we are now. To recover our Free Constitutional Republic, we need to reinstate the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended.
Get on the right side of the argument. You are arguing a Lying Leftist argument for tyanny.
“If a state passes a law, and it is upheld by the lower courts, that a person can not say booger, I think the supreme court has a duty to strike it down as against first amendment protection.”
The establishment clause of the first amendment places restrictions upon congress as to the what type of laws they are allowed to enact. When the establishment clause becomes something that is enforced by the feds upon others; the clear meaning of the constitution is turned on its head.
Would that more people held the constitution as something that we shouldn’t twist to our particular preferences.
OK, let me use another example, this time using the second amendment.
Or do I even need to... ;-)
You’re going far afield here. What does the 17th Amendment have to do with my post and how can you construe what I said to imply that a Constitutional Amendment is not Constitutional? Your reply makes no sense.
You said that SCOTUS has no authority over a first amendment issue. Pick your half of the first amendment, I see the law as a violation of both. Or did I misunderstand your comment?
The 1st Amendment, as is generally the whole Constitution, is aimed directly at the feds, nowhere else. It FORBIDS the feds from interfering with free speech and religion. It gives the feds NO power to enforce free speech and religion against the states.
So States can limit or even ban free speech, and even establish religion or non-religions then?
The Constitution which is aimed directly at the feds doesn't forbid it.
As the 9th and 10th Amendments confirm, outside the Constitution, states are sovereign.
Nevertheless, most state constitutions DO forbid such intrusion into freedoms of speech and religion.
But nothing stops a state from amending thier Constitution and going full commie?
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government Art IV Sec 4, US Constitution.
Fair enough. Could a state like CA make the state religion pagan hedonism, and require pagan hedonism training in school (not much if a stretch from where they are now)
After Ruth Buzzie leaves the scene, to be replaced with a conservative.
Nothing in the U.S. Constitution forbids such, but almost certainly the CA state Constitution would forbid such.
Sovereign states are subject to the people of that state. THAT is what Art. IV Sec. 4 guarantees.
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.