Posted on 11/28/2013 9:49:22 AM PST by ReligiousLibertyTV
Jason is a Harvard Law graduate and a PhD candidate in Church-State Studies at the Dawson Institute at Baylor University. He is currently working on his dissertation about a Christian theology of church-state separation, and enjoys blogging about religion, politics, and questions of religious liberty.
>>>What their employees do, however, is none of their business.>>>
It’s Hobby Lobby’s business if it pays for it, you dumb cluck.
"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.
As a side note concerning the excerpt above, consider that it clarifies that Congress has no business sticking its big nose into intrastate commerse. So the statement basically contradicts the interpretation of Congress's Commerce Clause powers by FDR's activist justices in Wickard v. Filburn. Such a contradiction is important because former Speaker Pelosi had referenced the so-called "wide" powers that the Commerce Clause gave to Congress to help justify Obamacare.
The above statement also indicates that Congress doesn't have the constitutonal authority to address public healthcare issues any more than it does to make laws prohibited by the 1st Amendment.
In the next excerpt, Justice John Marshall had clarified in general that Congress cannot lay taxes in the name of state power issues, essentially any issue which Congress cannot justify under its Section 8-limited powers.
"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.
So not only did the Court clarify in Gibbons that Congress had no power to address public healthcare issues, the Court also clarified that Congress cannot lay taxes in the name of powers that it does not have. So regardless that Justice Roberts referenced Gibbons v. Ogden in the Obamacare opinion to help justify his support for Obamacare, I question why he "overlooked" key statements in Gibbons which reasonably contradict his support for Obamacare.
In the next excerpt, Justice Barbour expanded the wording concerning healthcare in Gibbons v. Ogden.
"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.
The last case opinion excerpt clarifies that Congress obviously has no power to regulate intrastate healthcare, obvious to everybody except evidently to Obama, Reid and Pelosi. Note that the Linder opinion was written roughly a decade before Constitution-ignoring socialist FDR took office.
“Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously (emphasis added) beyond the power of Congress.” –Linder v. United States, 1925.
In fact, former Rep. Jessie Jackson Jr. had repeatedly introduced a resolution for Congress to propose a healthcare amendment to the states for ratification as evidenced by the following.
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding the right of citizens of the United States to health care of equal high quality. --H. J. Res. 30.
Unfortunately, the Democratic-controlled House ignored Rep. Jackson Jr.'s proposal and passed Obamacare without the required consent of the Constitution's Article V majority.
As a side note to Rep. Jackson Jr.'s resolution, I have never been able to figure out why FDR hadn't done the following before leading Congress to establish his social spending programs. Given his great popularity, FDR should have first encouraged Congress to petition the states to ratify amendments which would have given Congress the constitutional authority that it needed to establish FDR's New Deal programs. Instead, FDR made a fool out of himself by trying to stack the Supreme Court to force support for his programs, as if he didn't understand or respect the federal government's constitutionally limited powers and the Constitution's amendment process.
Getting back to "DC Follies" concerning Obamacare, at least one month before former Speaker Pelosi had irresponsibly rammed Obamacare though the House, Judge Andrew Napolitan had read Congress's constitutonal Article I, Section 8-limited powers, clarifying that healthcare was not listed among those delegated powers.
Judge Napolitano & the Constitution
Given that Constitution-ignoring Demorcats wrongly established Obamacare outside the framework of the Constitution, I think that Mr. Green should expose activist justices by arguing the material above in addition to arguing his constitutional protections. But like many low-information patriots, I suspect that Mr. Green was probably never taught about Congress's Section 8-limited powers. And before I forget, here is my Supreme Court-issued "license" to make sense out of all of this stuff.
"3. The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition." --United States v. Sprague, 1931.
Finally, with all due respect to you and your profession Mr. Hines, given the remote possibility that you are not familiar with the material presented above, do you mind mentioning what students are being taught in law schools these days concerning the federal government's constitutionally limited powers?
If you read the author’s responses at the originating site, your conjectures will be confirmed.
Enough trolling. Bye.
There’s a reason that the political system is primarily composed of blue blood attorneys. It requires people with political connections and lots of money that are ruthless and lack empathy and sympathy for their fellow man to keep the political machine oiled and running.
If you are not defending the founding principles and our God-given unalienable rights and the constitutional restrictions on government, you are not part of the solution; you are the problem. Suggest you study and learn the true meaning of the Declaration and the founding of this Christian nation before you post another blog entry. FR is here to defend liberty, not promote the progressive destruction of same. Wannabe lawyers who ignore the founding principles suck and grow up to be lousy politicians or judges. Statismn sucks!!
There is no constitutional authority whatsoever for the federal government to involve itself in religion or health care. Repeal this godforsaken unconstitutional communist POS and keep the feds the hell OUT!! That’s the only argument you should be making!!
Over here, too. See #65. Jim Thompson took care of this turkey!
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a blogging lawyer get such basic history so wrong and post his blog in “news” before.
Something NEW!
He should have put it in “breaking news”, nyuk nyuk
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
= = =
Where does the First Ammendment allow Congress to make a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion under certain circumstances?
The author of the article needs to go back to school. This is clear as day.
If a corporation can live, then it can honor the Lord.
Simple, eh?
This is a case of excruciatingly bad theology. Who knows how it will shake out. Hobby Lobby could get a pass. Or it might be forced upon a moment of truth and nobody said moments of truth were guaranteed to be easy. However if faced according to the Lord’s command they will be faced victoriously in spite of setbacks on the way.
Just saw the ZoT! was from The Man himself too ;D
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.