Skip to comments.Cruz: Landmark victory for religious liberty
Posted on 06/30/2014 9:24:37 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, today released the following statement commending the Supreme Courts decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.
Today the Supreme Court handed our nation a landmark victory for religious liberty. The decision affirms that Americans, contrary to what the Obama Administration attempted to impose, have a right to live and work in accordance to their conscience and cant be forced to surrender their religious freedom once they open a business.
This ruling is a repudiation of the Obama Administrations untenable position that people with sincerely held religious beliefs should be forced to comply with an unconstitutional mandate while a parade of waivers, exemptions, and delays are granted for purely commercial and political interests.
In making this ruling the Court relied on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was passed with broad bipartisan support, proving the strength and necessity of the legislation and showing the nation the effectiveness members of Congress can have when they work together to protect religious liberty.
Certainly, the struggle for religious freedom will continue, as cases made by hundreds more plaintiffs will wend their way through the courts. The right to religious liberty, as enshrined in the First Amendment, remains under an incredible assault by this Administration on a variety of fronts. But, with this decision, I am hopeful that the courts will also work to safeguard the religious liberty for non-profits, such as the Little Sisters of the Poor and others, just as the Supreme Court did today for private businesses.
God Bless Ted Cruz.
He has the stones to stand up for real values.
If SCOTUS was interested in Liberty — Obamacare would have been declared unconstitutional.
The resultant ruling is the only one which could legally stand, unless you wish to violate the “...shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion” clause. If you force businesses to kill fetuses, blastocysts, embryos, infants, or toddlers as the liberals want, you violate the religious freedom of all Christians. (You also violate basic human decency, but the Supreme Court decided that was useless in 1973, and still maintains that decision was valid.)
Hopefully, this ruling will also allow businesses to refuse to deal with or hire homosexuals, Muslims, or atheists, since this is also a violation of the religious rights of Christians. Unfortunately, I’m not sure if the Supreme Court would be consistent on this matter.
Wouldn’t this also apply for the baker who didn’t want to prepare a wedding cake for a gay couple?
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Maybe as much as doctor who didn't want to an abortion for a woman; we shall see.
cant be forced to surrender their religious freedom once they open a business.
Unless they are bakers....
Let’s just pray that our freedoms remain protected by the 5-4s. I can’t believe we’re that close to losing everything.
That is interesting vmivo100. Maybe the baker would have to organize his LLC or corp as being religious or something similar - then he could.
I predict a bunch of reorganizations/incorporations that are sructured just so.
But regardless that patriots have one less headache to worry about concerning the corrupt federal government, let's not lose sight regarding Democratcare that activist justices likely still want to keep voters in the dark about the federal government's constitutionally limited powers.
More specifically, and as mentioned in related threads, when activist justices originally declared constitutionally indefensible Democratcare to be constitutional, they wrongly ignored that the Supreme Court had historically clarified that the states have never delegated to the feds the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for intrastate public healthcare purposes. This is evidenced by the following excerpts.
State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. [emphases added] Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States. Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass. Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln, 1837.
Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously [emphasis added] beyond the power of Congress. Linder v. United States, 1925.
And for those constitutionally challenged liberals who argue that the Constitution doesnt say no to healthcare, please note the following. The Supreme Court has also officially clarified that powers not expressly delegated to the feds via the Constitution, regulating intrastate public healthcare for example, are prohibited.
From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]. United States v. Butler, 1936.