"You can keep your First Amendment if you like it," or something like that....
To hold that invocations must be nonsectarian would force the legislatures that sponsor prayers and the court that are asked to decide these cases to act as supervisors and censors of religious speech, a rule that would involve government in religious matters to a far greater degree than is the case under the town’s current practice of neither editing or approving prayers in advance nor criticizing their content after the fact... Government may not mandate a civic religion that stifles any but the most generic reference to the sacred any more than it may prescribe a religious orthodoxy.Because the plaintiffs in this case only wanted the Christian-specific aspect of the prayer removed from the town council, the above line of reasoning was invoked to buoy the more basic "tradition" argument also employed by the majority. But what about a constitutional challenge seeking a ban of prayer altogether? That would alleviate the need to inquire into the content of the prayer, thus freeing courts and governments from entangling themselves in the process of picking and choosing deities and faiths to pray to.
"The issue of the Constitution is that the text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago and what people believe it says differs from person to person and differs depending on what they want to get done."The internet remembers. Proving that "great minds" think alike, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) proclaimed the Constitution has guided our nation for "some 400 years." (h/t HotAir):
Was a police raid necessary to check permits and compliance?...
On November 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., a case arising out of commitment of the Green family, the sole owners of Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., to live out their deeply held religious convictions by “operating their company in a manner consistent with biblical principles.” These principles were put to the test when the federal government mandated that the Greens and their family businesses provide four specific potentially life-terminating drugs and devices through their employee health plan in conflict with their deeply held religious convictions. While the Green family has no moral objection to providing 16 of the 20 FDA-approved drugs and devices that are part of the federal mandate, providing drugs or devices that have the potential to terminate a life conflicts with their faith. Accordingly, the Greens and their family businesses filed suit in September 2012 to defend their right to religious freedom under the Constitution and federal law. Throughout, the Greens have been assisted and represented in the legal case by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a non-profit, public-interest legal and educational institute with a mission to protect the free expression of all faiths.The case is scheduled to be decided by the Supreme Court by the end of the June term. Apart from the legal work being done on Hobby Lobby’s behalf, the company has also engaged in a fairly strong public relations campaign. They’ve created a number a videos, featured on YouTube and their website, including this one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4pL32qQ_3k Hobby Lobby also appears to be engaging in a very active Twitter campaign to help control the narrative — to the extent possible — about their impending case.
Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, testified Wednesday before the House Judiciary Committee on the topic of “Enforcing the President’s Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws.” Turley expressed concern that “We are in the midst of a constitutional crisis with sweeping implications...
who like Obama using executive orders to go around Congress? "The Enablers"...
So holds today’s Obsidian Finance Group v. Cox (9th Cir. Jan. 17, 2014) (in which I represented the defendant). To be precise, the Ninth Circuit concludes that all who speak to the public, whether or not they are members of the institutional press, are equally protected by the First Amendment. To quote the court,The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond just assembling others’ writings, or tried to get both sides of a story. As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable: “With the advent of the Internet and the decline of print and broadcast media … the line between the media and others who wish to comment on political and social issues becomes far more blurred.” Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 352. In defamation cases, the public-figure status of a plaintiff and the public importance of the statement at issue — not the identity of the speaker — provide the First Amendment touchstones.I think that’s right, not just as a matter of First Amendment principle but also as a matter of history and precedent.... The specific legal issue that the Ninth Circuit was confronting in this passage, by the way, is whether all who speak to the public are equally protected by the Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. rules, which are that
We reported last week on how Judge Leon in the District of Columbia ruled against the government, preliminarily, on NSA mass data surveillance. I cautioned against the media assumption that the ruling would survive: The judge issued a preliminary injunction, but stayed his decision pending appeal....
Sorry, but I have too many other things on my plate right now to dig into this, even though it's clearly an important decision which may eventually make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. A federal judge in D.C. has found parts of the NSA...
No polygamous marriages yet, but polygamous family relationships no longer illegal in Utah....
A follow up to An increasingly dangerous presidency and More on Obama lawlessness. You can read the full testimonies at the links. The key thing is that there may be no remedy -- other than at the ballot box in 2014 -- to Obama's lawlessness. There...
The U.S. Supreme Court today agreed to review the lawsuit filed by Hobby Lobby against the federal government over the Obamacare mandate that employers provide contraceptive coverage in their health plans. Hobby Lobby, which is owned by an Oklahoma City family with strong Christian beliefs, says a 1993 law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, protects the company from the mandate. The company is particularly opposed to paying for coverage that includes the morning after pill.The court also accepted a related case from Pennsylvania involving a Mennonite family with a furniture-making business. In that case, a federal appeals court initially ruled that the owners could not challenge the mandate on religious ground because a company did not enjoy the same rights as individuals.
Rand Paul: Congress "getting too involved on how we execute war."...
I believe Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal and Ted Cruz to be "natural born Citizens" and eligible to be President. Here's why. 1. Summary There are few eligibility requirements to be President. You don't have to be smart, wise, experienced, honest, educated, or a particular gender or race. Article II, Section...
The president's latest radio address is a classic example of Obamaspeak. We've grown used to the drill. First, some empty words about how he's going to help the economy and the middle class. Then sanguine projections about what his program (in this case, Obamacare) will do...
The analysis of the Natural Born Citizen clause in the Constitution as it applies to Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. I promised to do this long ago, and did the research with the assistance of a former student, but couldn't bring myself to actually write it...
