Maine Ban On Religious Gatherings Over 10 Persons Is Upheld

Religion Clause ^ | 5/12/20 | Howard Friedman

[marshmallow]

In Calvary Chapel of Bangor v. Mills, (D ME, May 9, 2020), a Maine federal district court refused to issue a temporary restraining order against Maine Governor Janet Mills' COVID-19 order which prohibits religious gatherings of more than ten people.

The court rejected plaintiff's free exercise, Establishment Clause and free speech challenges to the Order.

[Salvation]

The governor here is trying to run the churches. Only 25 people allowed.

[wgmalabama]

130 grains should be enough for one at a time. You preference in size is your business. I would suggest 300+ yards minimum. Or 40 grains subsonic close.

[faithhopecharity]

In some courtrooms. Our United States Constitution is good only for toilet paper.

[ConservativeInPA]

Sounds like another judge that hasn’t read the constitution. Put his name down on the list for hard labor for after the revolution is won. (Btw, I’m feeling very forgiving tonight.)

[fella]

Are the LEOs going to keep a close eye on the mosques with SWAT teams at the ready?

[Salvation]

Ten hardly allows for one First Communicant and his/her family.

[Salvation]

Oh, wait! This isn’t a Catholic Church!

[DeplorableGirl]

And anyone who thinks we’ll escape or be spared is deluding themselves.

[joma89]

Then the rights in the Bills of Rights simply do not exist if states can take them away.

JoMa

[BigJimSportCamper]

It’s not a pandemic.

[oldtech]

If the states are not restricted by this,then is not the Constitution the Supreme Law of the Land? Maybe I don’t understand how this works, but then again, maybe some judge doesn’t understand it.

[Svartalfiar]

So even ignoring all of the Incorporation arguments, what about this guy?

Section 3. Religious freedom; sects equal; religious tests prohibited; religious teachers. - All individuals have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences, and no person shall be hurt, molested or restrained in that person's liberty or estate for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of that person's own conscience, nor for that person's religious professions or sentiments, provided that that person does not disturb the public peace, nor obstruct others in their religious worship;


I'm not delving too deep into Maine laws regarding emergency order authority from the Govner, but unless he's explicitly allowed to do this stuff, it's a big no-no. And, I don't know how this would apply to sections of their Constitution versus regular State law, but they have this below, too. (Note, I would argue it does not allow for suspension of Constitutional provisions, only for lower levels of law.)

Section 13. Suspension of laws. The laws shall not be suspended but by the Legislature or its authority.

[Svartalfiar]

If the states are not restricted by this,then is not the Constitution the Supreme Law of the Land? Maybe I don’t understand how this works, but then again, maybe some judge doesn’t understand it.

Originally, the Constitution's first Amendment was directed at Congress (Congress shall make no law...), and didn't affect the States. States were free to endorse their own state religion, restrict certain press or speech, and so on. The rest of the Amendments were, arguably, already incorporated against the States by their wording guarding the rights of the people, not merely confirming Congress can't do something. The Constitution is the supreme law, and it enumerates certain powers that the States do or don;t have, as well as the FedGov. As long as they stay within those boundaries, the States can experiment as they please.

BUT, any of those arguments above are pretty much moot since the the Fourteenth Amendment pretty much guarantees any restrictions on the FedGov powers related to the rights of the people are also restrictions on the States.

States and FedGov are two different entities - they each have different powers, with the mojority of powers left to the States/people. So the States can do things the FedGov can't, but that doesn't make them superior over FedGov, it's just an area where we, the people, haven't given those powers to FedGov, but some (or all) have given those powers to their State. This can get confusing because FedGov has grown WAAAY past it's boundaries and snuck into places they don't have any enumerated powers (or limited ones): (DoEdu, DoEnergy, EPA, ATF, etc etc etc. )

[NobleFree]

The First Amendment restricts Congress not the states.

If the states are not restricted by this,then is not the Constitution the Supreme Law of the Land?

The Supremacy Clause means that any state law that impedes or infringes on an enumerated federal power, e.g. coining money, is nullified. That in no way contradicts my statement: the First Amendment restricts Congress not the states.

[NobleFree]

the Fourteenth Amendment pretty much guarantees any restrictions on the FedGov powers related to the rights of the people are also restrictions on the States.

With exactly what language does the Fourteenth Amendment do that?

[MurphsLaw]

so true....

[Svartalfiar]

the Fourteenth Amendment pretty much guarantees any restrictions on the FedGov powers related to the rights of the people are also restrictions on the States.

With exactly what language does the Fourteenth Amendment do that?

Simple. Have you not read this before or heard of anything about "incorporation"?

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

[NobleFree]

heard of anything about "incorporation"?

Incorporation was invented by the Supreme Court, and rationalized by the Due Process Clause not the clause you cite. The term occurs nowhere in the amendment.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

No dice. Just as Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States" means no discrimination by a state against visitors or immigrants from other states, the clause you cite means no discrimination by a state between its citizens.

[Svartalfiar]

Incorporation was invented by the Supreme Court, and rationalized by the Due Process Clause not the clause you cite. The term occurs nowhere in the amendment.

It doesn't matter if the term appears or not, the effects are what matter. If you read a dictionary, no definition contains the word being defined, yet the word and its definition are the same thing. Incorporation simply describes what the Amendment is doing.



No dice. Just as Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States" means no discrimination by a state against visitors or immigrants from other states, the clause you cite means no discrimination by a state between its citizens.

You're combining two terms. "The several States" and "the United States" aren't the same thing - one refers to the States individually, and the other to the States as a whole, the FedGov. Yes, IV-2-1 prevents States from discriminating against visitors. The clause I stated means States can't make a law violating rights of US citizens. And what are those rights? The States don't define that, or you'd have several different sets of defined rights that vary. The rights of "citizens of the United States" have to be the federally defined rights, ie those listed in the Constitution.
It doesn't apply to equal protection of those within the State (as you're mentioning), because that's what the last clause in A14-1 does: nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[NobleFree]

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

No dice. Just as Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States" means no discrimination by a state against visitors or immigrants from other states, the clause you cite means no discrimination by a state between its citizens.

You're combining two terms. "The several States" and "the United States" aren't the same thing

Red herring - I never said nor implied they were.

The clause I stated means States can't make a law violating rights of US citizens.

Wrong - "rights" are not the same as "privileges or immunities," otherwise the Constitution would have simply called the latter "rights."

It doesn't apply to equal protection of those within the State (as you're mentioning), because that's what the last clause in A14-1 does: nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Wrong again - the Privileges or Immunities Clause says the language of state law shall not discriminate, whereas the Equal Protection Clause says the laws shall be enforced as written, that is, states' judicial and executive/enforcement branches shall also not discriminate.