What has that got to do with the Constitution? The Constitution does not define what is or is not a religion. The Constitution neither encourages nor prohibits pot. It doesn't prohibit animal sacrifices. It leaves those matters to the States. There is probably case law in the legal tomes of various States. Some cases may have, for various reasons, reached the SCOTUS.

What's your point?

I asked a few simple questions. If you don't want to answer, then don't answer.

Thanks

"Oops."

Hobby Lobby is before the Supreme Court right now, their case hasn't been decided yet. You "oops" seems a wee bit premature.

The ACA was declared constitutional. Obama accomplished this, by convincing the Court that it is a "tax", despite telling us repeatedly that it is not a tax. Gotta like that consietency. Say one thing to one audience, say the exact opposite to anotheraudience, and hope that no one notices.

Spence, as I have said, I like the idea of Obamacare, so don't for one second think you nailed me in a gotcha! moment. No one gets to decide whether they will be born healthy or born sick, therefore it seems just to me, that we all share in some kind of shared risk pool of some sort. But, as always, we need to do it within the confines of the constitution.

The Supreme Court may well rule against HL. That doesn't mean HL was wrong. The Supreme Court is not infallible. They upheld slavery not all that long ago, and more recently, some of your ilk refused to accept the Court's decision regarding the 2000 election.

Spence, for all your posts on this thread, for all your insults, I see you continue to cowardly dodge the only issue that matters - why is HL wrong when they say that their constitutional rights are being violated? What's the matter, The Huffington Post hasn't told you how to respond to that point yet, so you just lob insults while you're waiting?

Why can't you answer the only question that matters on this issue? Can't you show a tiny shred of intellectual honesty?

Right. It's "laughable" that politicians would give financial benefits to a constituency, in order to secure future votes? That never happens? Politicians never try to buy votes?

"When I see people with the belief that when some people do something to help people less fortunate than themselves "

Oh, please. Sandra Fluke was a student at the Georgetown University School Of Law, and she needs me to pay for her condoms? She's "less fortunate" than we are?

This isn't about charity, because there is no "needs test" to qualify for teh free contraception - under the ACA, everyone gets free contraception, not just poor people.

You are suggesting that if i opose handing out free contraception to everyone (including billionaires), that it's because I have no sympathy for those who deserve sympathy?

Wrong. My opposition to this has nothing to do with lack of sympathy. It has everything to do with the constitution.

We're not talking about giving food to starving kids here. Let's put this debate in the proper context.

Good questions. i don't know the answers. There are limits, for example, we can't allow a religion to perform human sacrifices, because that would violate the victim's right to life. Last time I read the constitution, I didn't see any mention of the right to free condoms. I did, however, read about freedom of religion.

If enough people are sick of the freedom of religion, we can change the constitution to reflect that. Until then, the constitution is what it says it is.

We'll see how the court decides. Could go either way.

I thought I answered your questions in terms of what was relevant to me in order to get to the point . . . if there was one. Rather than going through a lawyerese courtroom catechism of "simple questions" which were supposed to lead me to a gotcha moment, I preferred to get to a relevant point pronto. The point being the constitutional argument about which this post revolves.

But, OK. If you want simple answers to "simple questions,":

"Is Rastafarianism(sp) considered a religion?"
I don't know if Rastafarianism is a religion. Don't care.

"If so, is pot smoking allowed under the law?"
Under which law? Various States have different laws. Don't care, personally, about marijuana use. But as far as a constitutional matter, I believe there should not be absolute restrictions of it. Certainly, the Federal Government has the power, constitutionally, to "regulate" (that is a loaded and progressively misconstrued legal word) interstate commerce. But the "regulation" should be moderated to its original meaning, and it should only apply to actual INTER State commerce, not that which is purely State or local. And individual rights should not be trampled by the whim or prejudice of judges or legislatures.

How about Santeria and animal sacrifices?
I don't know if any States allow those. I don't, personally, like animal sacrifices.

"There must be case law on that?"
I don't know. As you infer, there probably is. At what level--local, State, or Federal, I don't know, nor know what decisions were made and if they contradicted others or were resolved at SCOTUS.

But case law can be, not merely precedent, but can be bad case law ergo bad precedent.

I've answered your simple questions, can you answer mine?

Do you think bad case law should be reversed?

Do you think the Constitution should be "interpreted" in its original sense, or should be molded, rewritten, to "reflect" the present, and if the latter, should that be done by SCOTUS decisions or by amendment?

Do you believe the Federal Government should be unlimited in its power?

Thanks - If it's not relevant to you then just ignore the question. I don't think I have ever spent time (like you seem to constantly do) asking multiply questions to come to some "gotcha moment"

I have no interest in going down the rats hole of debating constitutional law with you. For one you know more than me and for two any time anyone gets in a debate with you it seems to last so long everyone else seems to get so bored the thread just dies.

The Constitution was not meant to be an abstruse legal document which only lawyers and judges could understand or "know about." It was meant to be the basic governmental blueprint for how the nation, comprised of the unified States, was to be governed. And it intentionally imposed upon the central government prescribed duties to which it was supposed to be limited. The purpose was to guarantee, if followed, that the individual, YOU, had sovereign, unalienable rights which could not be trampled as had been done by the oppressive governments of the past.

I don't have some great secretive knowledge about the Constitution that you do not have access to with a little effort. That knowledge should have been taught to all of us in our formative education. Unfortunately, that is not done well, and what is done and the way it is done is too "boring" for young minds more interested in games and gonads.

But to be disinterested in your mature years as to how your government is supposed to operate, especially how it impacts your freedom to aspire and achieve your goals, and especially in light of the differences you have with others who may wish to impose their versions on you . . . to lack interest in understanding that very basic governmental foundation of the society you live in is, in my opinion, irresponsible. Not only to yourself, but to the rest of society, your children, your neighbors, your countrymen, who all depend on each other to protect our rights as individuals, or families, or groups of whatever kind.

Without the understanding of the Constitution, we fall victim to the prescriptions of the "experts" who wish to herd us into their version of how we should lead our lives. We, as a people, though we may have disagreements on personal issues, must either stand together in protecting those basic rights granted to us by our Constitution, or lose them. If we accept the government's power to deny someone else a fundamental right because we don't agree with that person's use of his right, then we must accept government's power to deny ourselves the same fundamental right. To be so blind as to think that it won't do so because we and the government happen to agree on the issue, regardless of the right, is an invitation for future government to deny our right on grounds of difference of opinion.

The Constitution is not a prescription to govern by opinion. It is a fundamental law which guarantees individuals the right to have personal opinions and to act on them so long as they don't deny others the same. It is a restriction against government by opinion, and it is the foundation for the rule of law.

It is not difficult for you, if you wish, to come to an understanding of the Constitution, and what it means for you personally, and for society in general. You can easily "know" what I do about it, if you wish. I was disinterested when I was young and when life was too interesting to be "bored" with what didn't seem to be important. I have lived long enough to understand that what is more important than my personal pleasures, per se, is my freedoms to pursue them.
And it was not difficult to learn about and understand the Constitution. I would recommend Hillsdale's free online courses on the Constitution as an easy and enjoyable start.

I happen to like you, Paul, and I think that if a person like you who believes in a moral basis for your life were to come to an understanding of the moral and legal foundation of our society, it would benefit not only you, but the rest of us as well. I would be glad to stand with you and say, as Voltaire was reputed to say "I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

seems like it most often ends with someone running out of talking points and dodges and resulting to insults after being asked a few simple question to help clarify his belief on what is truly at the heart of the debate which might help come to some common understanding...one can declare "normalized reality", but if you don't define what normal is, reality is what to make up as you go along and see fit....the Constitutional questions aren't that complicated or even a "rats hole" and to ignore them as they are the "ONE" thing that is supposed to bind us all, and continue to argue about Constitutional issues without explaining whether or not you believe the Constitution applies them is to "debate" without any purpose avoiding what is at the heart of the debate ...and then we complain that the country is divided:love:

Except, apparently, when the Constitutional protections interfere with Obama's agenda, in which case, they can apparently be ignored. And if you dare to question that, you are a racist (for hating Obama) and declaring war on women (for not supporting their reproductive health). Must be nice when you declare that any dissent from your position, is necessarily rooted in multiple forms of hate.

What is the status of this case? Any ETA on a decision? Haven't heard anything in awhile...

I wouldn't be too optimistic about the decision. There are four almost guaranteed progressive (anti-constitutional) votes against Lobby Hobby's religious grounds. So one "swing" vote could break your heart. As religion loses its importance in the increasingly secular view in the culture of the West, that part of the First Amendment will more often lose its protection of religious people's once guaranteed rights. The same thing will be happening to the rest of the First Amendment as well as the Second, and the rest of what remains of the Bill of Rights and of the entire Constitution. That's why being a "little bit" unfaithful to the Constitution's structure and original intent, is actually just another crack in its wall of separation between liberty and tyranny. When you favor the Federal Government to take control of something it was not constitutionally granted the power to do, even if it would seem to be "charitable" or "fair," you let the foot of precedent in the door to the whole structure, and its strength begins to crumble, unless repaired, and will continue to do so as the rush of new precedent driven footsteps pour in and overpower the Constitution and replace its guaranteed rights with those granted by invasive government.

I have no certainty that the case will go the way that it clearly should. I just don't understand why it's not 9-0 in favor of HL. I do think they will win 5-4, but I am no means certain of it. And even a 5-4 victory for HL means that there are 4 Supreme Court justices who don't have even a basic understanding of the Constitution.

Do you know when a decision is expected?

Well this is interesting.

http://www.salon.com/2014/04/01/hobb...rce=newsletter
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

crickets...

Good lord...

First, the article begins with the notion that HL has "qualms with basic medical care " That tells you what you need to know about the author's point of view. So if I don't feel responsible for paying for Sandra Fluke's rubbers, then I don't support basic medical care!

When they offer 401(k)s to employees, they are supposed to check the business practices of every single company whose stocked is owned by every single mutual fund they offer.

Nebe, there's this pesky constitution again. Even if I concede that HL's owners are hypocrites, the constitution even applies to hypocrites. It doesn't matter.

This is a naked attempt to blame the person asking the question (like they did with Joe The Plumber), rather than dealing with the constitutionality of HL's question.

I don't care if HL has condom machines in the bathroom. If so, that's their choice. Choosing to do something, and being forced by the feds to do something, are not the same thing. I chose to give $$ to the Catholic Church. If Obama passed a law forcing all of us to give $$ to the Catholic Church, I would oppose such a law on constitutional grounds. I guess, to the deep thinkers at Salon magazine, that makes me a hypocrite? Hardly.

How's this...

The Constitution applies to all of us, even to business owners who are despised by the editors of Salon magazine.

Nebe, instead of tryng to prove that the HL owners are hyopocritical jerks, try telling me why the Constitution doesn't apply to them.

Their 401k investments have no bearing on the case before the supreme court, but it sure as heck makes them look very hypocritical.

You are correct the constitution applies to everybody even hypocrits, and this shouldn't make any bit of difference with the supreme court's ruling. But this may end up hurting their business in the long run


This wasn't just a salon.com article...it was also in the Washington Post, Forbes and other papers as well. I was reading one article that said that their 401k investments are somewhere in the vicinity of 75% with companies that produce different types of contraceptives.

There was another Salon article last week about how the owners of the Hobby Lobby are notorious for trying to inject their values into government.

This whole thing is a stunt.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"the owners of the Hobby Lobby are notorious for trying to inject their values into government."

Oh My God! Are you saying that these citizens have the audacity to express their personal opinions to their duly elected representatives?! Can we send them to the showers?

Spence, when teachers unions donate huge $$ to Democrats, aren't they trying to "inject their values into government"?

Come on...

"This whole thing (freedom of religion, and by extension, the constitution) is a stunt"

I interpreted the news as 75% of the funds that are in the 401(k), have some exposure to those companies. If that's true (and I'm not saying it is), I'm not sure I see much of a scandal.

As I have said...I choose to give a lot of $$ to the Catholic Church. If Obama passed a law forcing people to give $$ to the Catholic Church, I would oppose that law as being unconstitutional. Doe sthat make me a hypocrite? Not in my opinion. If I endorse somehtnig personally (say, contraception), that's not the same thing as saying I support the government's right to mandate it.

I thought liberals were in favor of 'choice'. I'm pretty sure I heard that somewhere. Why can't the HL owners 'choose' not to provide free contraception?

Because they are forcing their values on their employees and are in turn removing the choices that they can make. simple.

The mutual fund managers choose which securities to invest in. I would assume most mutual funds would include pharmaceutical stock which would be very beneficial, financially, to the mutual fund's investors, and would be wise choices for the managers to make. The investors don't get to decide what the prospectus of the portfolio is, or to customize with their choice of securities. The investors are trading with the mutual fund, not the individual companies that make up the portfolio. The Salon article could also have found other products that various companies in the portfolios manufactured which were not contraceptive related but also against personal values of HL owners. It would probably not be possible for them to invest in any mutual funds if all the products which were produced by the companies which make up the portfolios had to be morally pure to the HL owners.

And, the pharmaceutical companies that create abortifacients also produce many life saving products. Can the companies be separated from their good and evil products. Should HL also bar the life saving drugs from their health insurance plans because the companies also produce abortifacients?

Should the HL owners prohibit themselves from using the various "wonder" drugs available to help with heart, cholesterol, blood pressure, cancer, etc. etc., or the topical ointments for skin problems, etc., etc., because the companies also produce abortifacients. Now if the HL owners themselves used the abortion pills they don't want to provide, THAT would be the hypocrisy, the lying, the "stunt," that should be their downfall.

The HL owners cannot control what the rest of the world does, nor what all the companies which make those things we live by produce. It would be virtually impossible for the HL'rs to exist in society if they had to abstain from every necessity, or useful items, if those things had to be pure of touch by something or someone who or which was disapproved by their religion. Even the government is comprised of individuals or regulations that run counter to their belief. Render unto Caesar what it Caesar's and unto God what is God's.

And that is the real question here. That is why Jim keeps bringing up the Constitution rather than personal opinion of right and wrong. The problem began here, not with HL owners desire to refuse the providing of certain insurance, but with the government mandating that they must. It is not only about what is Caesar's and what is God's, it is about fundamental unalienable rights, and if we actually have them. And if the HL owners are consistent, they would support the right of Muslims and of atheists, or believers in Gaea, or pantheists, of agnostics, or centrists, or "liberals," or "conservatives," or even devil worshippers, to refuse to offer government dictated insurance.

If we grant the Federal Government the power to mandate that we buy a particular product or be penalized if we don't, then we give it the precedent to do so with any product. If we do so, we give the government absolute power over our lives. That is, ultimately, what the passage of the ACA, and resistance to it, is about.

If you asked me to give you $15,000 dollars and I refused to do so, would I be "forcing" my values on you and removing choices you can make?

Are the employees of HL so totally dependent on the company that it determines the values they live by and the choices they make?

If the government "forces" LH to give you something and it refuses to do so, what value has LH "forced" on you and what choices has LH removed from you?

Does LH have any say in the matter? Or is it only about what the employees want or what the government wants?

Should LH even exist as a private entity, or should it merely be a government mandated service to employees and customers?

remarkable how this "forcing values" on others is such a one way street with some:uhuh:

“Everything not forbidden is compulsory,” or will be soon enough under our “liberal” regime.

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/374115/print

Please explain how the store's owners are forcing their values on anyone. Be specific. And good luck, because you cannot succeed.

One. Last. Time. The owners are not trying to convert their employees to Christianity, the employers are not trying to convince their employees not to use condoms with the wages provided by the owners.

The more I think of it the better off we are here. Anyone ever been in a Hobby Lobby? We as a society don't want these people reproducing...trust me.....:)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, another beautifully written article. As well as pointing out the Orwellian transformation, it calls to mind how over time, as was pointed out in an older post, we have had an attitude adjustment which reverses what our grandparents understood, that the government was our servant, and we the masters. It used to be understood that what was forbidden was government intrusion beyond what the sovereign People consented to. What was compulsory was the government's duty to act only within the limitations the People granted to it. Now, we have been conditioned to automatically assume what is forbidden is not applied to government action, but is restriction government imposes on us. And what is compulsory now is not what the government is limited to do, but what We The People are required by government to do. As you have often said, it's upside down. The author traces the path to reversal eloquently in a logical way. The Article is another well-crafted, rational, creative, open minded piece that "conservatives" are not reputed, by some here, to be capable of. It, seems, as Jim in CT likes to say, irrefutable. So will probably elicit the "crickets" Nebe thought would be the response to his screechy "liberal" hit piece article.

And worse, most of the drugs they're now opposing they openly covered before the ACA was passed. You might wonder if the Citizens United case laid the groundwork for this suit to even happen.

Not to mention that their religious argument isn't even backed by science.

The more I read about this case the less chance is has of passing.

-spence

since we(spence) yawns and discredits sources on a regular basis here...I'd just note that the Forbes article was written by Rick Ungar who describes himself as "I write from the left on politics and policy" and references the Mother Jones article as the premise for his article and continues from there, the Washington Post article by Gail Sullivan also references the Mother Jones article to launch her article and WOW...this is a shocker but the salon.com article also references the Mother Jones article to launch that article...head bone connected to the tail bone......and so since we all know that Mother Jones is ...well....biased just a tad???? can we play Spence's game and discount this as useless info from left wing neocommie rags? :) don't see it in any mainstream...oh wait...the dailykos.com ...has it too...geez