Smart Republican

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

So religious freedom is something you can impose on others?

That was funny. No, imposing freedom is an oxymoron.

If you mean that practicing one's unalienable right when it interferes with someone else's unalienable right is not protected by the constitution, you're onto something. It becomes even less constitutional, if that's possible, when a government fabricated right interferes with an unalienable constitutional right.

Seems to be an issue more about commerce than free speech.

-spence

Of course you would see it that way since you ascribe to the progressive "interpretation" of the Constitution. Under that interpretation just about everything is about commerce. The original Constitution only granted the Federal Government specific power to "regulate" INTERSTATE commerce, and "commerce" and "regulate" had far more specific and limited meaning than progressives define those words to mean. And, of course, since the progressives have even removed the INTERSTATE restriction on the Federal authority, ALL commerce, of the broadest definition that can be imposed on that word can be controlled by the Federal Government under any terms it wishes since "regulate" has also been redefined in the broadest possible way. So, yeah, "commerce" is one of the usual fallbacks for progressive jurisprudence.

But, I think (haven't read it), the bill was not about commerce or even speech, but about the First Amendment guaranty of freedom of religion.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

But, I think (haven't read it), the bill was not about commerce or even speech, but about the First Amendment guaranty of freedom of religion.

it's not quite as long as the ACA Bill

interesting

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...t#.UxBA0fmwJIU

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

it's not quite as long as the ACA Bill

interesting

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...t#.UxBA0fmwJIU

Great article. Cuts through all the agenda driven BS right to the actual point of the bill. One little thing raises my "hackles" far more than anything Spence, a really nice, decent, and likeable guy with whom I disagree on just about everything, says. That little thing Lowry mentions is the "compelling government interest" which can burden religious freedom. That "compelling interest" is a concoction by progressive judges that lets them get around constitutional limitations. The only "interest" the Federal Government is allowed by the Constitution, compelling or not, is that which falls within its enumerated powers. By granting themselves the ability to view legislation in light of some general compelling interest which may even fall outside enumerated limtations, the judges have given themselves the latitude necessary to give constitutional approval to anything the government wishes to do, especially when any "rational basis," another overarching progressive concoction, can be applied. "Compelling" and "rational basis," in general, are not only intrinsically outside the scope of enumerated powers, they are to a great degree subjective. As such, they become a matter of opinion, not a matter of law. And the "rational basis" theory was originally not only a result of a judge's personal perspective, but it was based on flawed data, so was actually "irrational."