Posted on 03/23/2014 2:09:56 PM PDT by jazusamo
“However, the government has multiple paths to victory in the case. First, it will attempt to convince the justices that a company is not, in the context of RFRA, a “person” capable of religious belief. “
Huh? I thought it was plan A from before which is threaten Roberts again?
Is it true that muzzies are exempted from signing up to Zerocare?
If so, why?
Never fear, a Supreme Court once bullied, will stay bullied.
Not sure...I’ve read in the past that they’re exempt but don’t know if it was just a part or in total.
I doubt that the first amendment was meant to constrain article I section 8. The argument that government is constrained was lost, and it strains credulity to think practitioners of organized religion deserve special consideration.
I didn’t stand up when the licentious lost their freedoms, because I wasn’t licentious. Yadda yadda. Tough. Deal with it.
The specific religious exemption in the law.
the “birth control mandate” is NOT part of the bill passed by congress, but a decision of “doctors” on an Obama appointed “health care panel” who mandated it. In other words, these unelected bureaucrats made the decision.
Not specifically. However, the law has a exemption provision for those adherents of a religion that has a 60-year (or longer) history and traditionally rejects any form of insurance including Social Security (the Amish, for instance). Muslims may well apply for this exemption and have it granted but not yet as that would trigger even more backlash against the Unaffordable Care Act.
Thanks, 0bama has completely adulterated this act and done exactly as he pleased while Congress (GOP controlled House) has stood by and watched.
Indeed they had the goods on Roberts adoption deal wonder what they have on the others?.
Is the Mafia learning from Obama&Co?.
Great point LadyDoc.
Given the remote possibility that you aren't aware of the following, you might find it interesting.
The Founding States had made the first numbered clauses in the Constitution, Sections 1-3 of Article I, evidently a good place to hide them from Congress and Obama, to clarify that all federal legislative powers are vested in the elected members of Congress and nowhere else. So Congress has a constitutional monopoly on federal legislitive powers whether it wants it or not imo.
So by unconstitutionally delegating federal legislative powers to nonelected bureaucrats, Congress is wrongly protecting federal legislative powers from the wrath of the voters in blatant defiance of the clauses referenced above.
And whats even even worse is that the States have never delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for public healthcare purposes. So not only is Congress unconstitutonally delegating federal legislative powers to unelected bureaucrats, but Congress is delegating powers that it never had in the first place.
What a mess! :^(
This mandatory thing is only double dipping for PP.
People in America can even think that phrase?
If so, why?
It is true. Religious reasons. Islam is the only religion recognized by this Administration.
Government is not now constrained.
The controversy has already had its public phase a couple of years ago in MSM and even here. The paynim are exempt because of their religion.
I surely hope you’re right about the backlash to 0bama and Dems, religious beliefs take precedence on this issue in my view.
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.