Sen. Baldwin: First Amendment Applies To Institutions of Faith, ‘But I Don’t Think It Extends

[Suzanimal]

Video at link. I don't know how to embed these vids.

Sen. Baldwin: First Amendment Applies To Institutions of Faith, ‘But I Don’t Think It Extends Far Beyond That’


Our friends at NewsBusters posted this little tidbit from Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), who said on the June 27 broadcast of Up with Steve Kornacki, that the First Amendment only applied to institutions of faith. The discussion revolved around the Obergefell ruling from the Supreme Court, which said there is a constitutional right to gay marriage.


Tammy Baldwin: “Certainly the First Amendment says that in institutions of faith that there is absolute power to, you know, to observe deeply held religious beliefs. But I don’t think it extends far beyond that. We’ve seen the set of arguments play out in issues such as access to contraception. Should it be the individual pharmacist whose religious beliefs guides whether a prescription is filled, or in this context, they’re talking about expanding this far beyond our churches and synagogues to businesses and individuals across this country. I think there are clear limits that have been set in other contexts and we ought to abide by those in this new context across America.”

Well, that simply isn’t the case. Of course, the free exercise clause applies to individuals. For goodness sake, just look at First Amendment law that involves members of Jehovah’s Witnesses. In 1943, the Supreme Court ruled in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette that compulsory flag salutes were a violation of free speech and free exercise in the First Amendment; school officials had punished the students and their families, all members of Jehovah’s Witness, for this infraction.

...

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2015/07/06/sen-baldwin-first-amendment-applies-to-institutions-of-faith-but-i-dont-think-it-extends-far-beyond-that-n2021895

[sparebulb]

+rep for Tammy Baldwin

The more these people say what is really on their minds, the sooner we cut to the chase.

I've grown weary of the long courtship with what is coming.

[Sonny Tufts]

Of course there are limits to the Free Exercise Clause. See, for example, Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), in which the Supreme Court held that a State could deny unemployment benefits to someone who was fired for illegally using peyote, regardless of the fact that the use was part of a religious observance.


The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, which has been made applicable to the States by incorporation into the Fourteenth Amendment, ... provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ." U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 (emphasis added). The free exercise of religion means, first and foremost, the right to believe and profess whatever religious doctrine one desires. Thus, the First Amendment obviously excludes all "governmental regulation of religious beliefs as such." ... The government may not compel affirmation of religious belief,... punish the expression of religious doctrines it believes to be false, ... impose special disabilities on the basis of religious views or religious status, ... or lend its power to one or the other side in controversies over religious authority or dogma...

But the "exercise of religion" often involves not only belief and profession but the performance of (or abstention from) physical acts: assembling with others for a worship service, participating in sacramental use of bread and wine, proselytizing, abstaining from certain foods or certain modes of transportation. It would be true, we think (though no case of ours has involved the point), that a State would be "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" if it sought to ban such acts or abstentions only when they are engaged in for religious reasons, or only because of the religious belief that they display. It would doubtless be unconstitutional, for example, to ban the casting of "statues that are to be used for worship purposes," or to prohibit bowing down before a golden calf.

Respondents in the present case, however, seek to carry the meaning of "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" one large step further. They contend that their religious motivation for using peyote places them beyond the reach of a criminal law that is not specifically directed at their religious practice, and that is concededly constitutional as applied to those who use the drug for other reasons. They assert, in other words, that "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" includes requiring any individual to observe a generally applicable law that requires (or forbids) the performance of an act that his religious belief forbids (or requires). As a textual matter, we do not think the words must be given that meaning. It is no more necessary to regard the collection of a general tax, for example, as "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" by those citizens who believe support of organized government to be sinful, than it is to regard the same tax as "abridging the freedom . . . of the press" of those publishing companies that must pay the tax as a condition of staying in business. It is a permissible reading of the text, in the one case as in the other, to say that if prohibiting the exercise of religion (or burdening the activity of printing) is not the object of the tax but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended...

Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a "valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)." (citations omitted)

[erowe1]

Of course there are limits to the Free Exercise Clause. See, for example, Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), in which the Supreme Court held that a State could deny unemployment benefits to someone who was fired for illegally using peyote, regardless of the fact that the use was part of a religious observance.

What does the Supreme Court have to do with it?

Are you saying that the First Amendment is limited because they say so?

[ZENemy]

Of course there are limits to the Free Exercise Clause. See, for example, Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), in which the Supreme Court held that a State could deny unemployment benefits to someone who was fired for illegally using peyote, regardless of the fact that the use was part of a religious observance.

You have no understanding of rights, free speech or anything other than the writings of men that you have memorized.

[Sonny Tufts]

What does the Supreme Court have to do with it?

Are you saying that the First Amendment is limited because they say so?

Yes, because that's the way the law works.

[Sonny Tufts]

You have no understanding of rights, free speech or anything other than the writings of men that you have memorized.

And you have no understanding of constitutional law.

[ZENemy]

And you have no understanding of the writings of men.

Fixed it for you.

Call it what you want, it is the opinions of men who filled out a job application and nailed it.

[ZENemy]

And you have no understanding of constitutional law.

Awesome, proved my point, I rest my case.

[Sonny Tufts]

Fixed it for you.

Call it what you want, it is the opinions of men who filled out a job application and nailed it.

It is the opinions that will be applied and enforced in other cases, instead of some individualistic idealism.

[erowe1]

Yes, because that's the way the law works.

Says who? The Supreme Court?

[Sonny Tufts]

Says who? The Supreme Court?

That, and 212 years of acquiescing in judicial review and the other features of our legal system.

Don't confuse what the law IS with what you think it SHOULD be.

[erowe1]

That, and 212 years of acquiescing in judicial review and the other features of our legal system.

Don't confuse what the law IS with what you think it SHOULD be.

I'm not. Any law that is merely made up by people is not the law that IS.

The law that IS is that which SHOULD be, not what I (or any other mere human) think SHOULD be, but what actually SHOULD be. And if there is no such thing as what actually SHOULD be, regardless of what people thing, then there IS no law at all.

[Sonny Tufts]

The law that IS is that which SHOULD be, not what I (or any other mere human) think SHOULD be, but what actually SHOULD be. And if there is no such thing as what actually SHOULD be, regardless of what people thing, then there IS no law at all.

Real-world judges have to decide cases on the basis of objective laws made by humans, not on the basis of abstract Platonic ideals. The law that is actually applied in real-world courtrooms is the law that IS.

Your idealism is commendable, but if institutionalized it would likely lead to unjust results because someone has to determine the law that should be applied in a particular case. Two judges may have differing views on what the law should be, resulting in different treatments of similar litigants. At that point, we have a nation of men, not laws.

[ZENemy]

That, and 212 years of acquiescing in judicial review and the other features of our legal system.

Don't confuse what the law IS with what you think it SHOULD be.


lol

Can you please break down for me how:

Men, whom I do not know and are of no relation to me can write down words on paper and have it arbitrarily apply to me 239 years BEFORE I was born without my consent? What other contracts exist which can be applied to you before you are born?

[Sonny Tufts]

Can you please break down for me how:

Men, whom I do not know and are of no relation to me can write down words on paper and have it arbitrarily apply to me 239 years BEFORE I was born without my consent? What other contracts exist which can be applied to you before you are born?

Don't be daft -- the law doesn't apply to you before you were born, because before you were born there was no you.

What you probably meant to ask was how a law enacted before you were born applies to you when you come into existence if you haven't consented. This is the old issue about authority, and your posts suggest that you are one of those who doesn't recognize the authority of the law absent your explicit consent to be bound. That is a question of political philosophy, not law. Law presupposes authority, so if you want a philosophical discussion about the legitimacy of authority, ask someone else. At this point I'm only interested in the law as it's applied in the real world. And don't for one minute make the mistake of thinking that means I approve of the law as it's applied or that I think the law is always moral. Those are separate issues.

[Slave Mentality]

It is the opinions that will be applied and enforced in other cases, instead of some individualistic idealism.

You may be ate up with the idealism it seems. Like first year law school idealism. Nation of laws. Laughable. Try arbitrary edicts written by fools.

[Sola_Fide]

Of course there are limits to the Free Exercise Clause. See, for example, Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), in which the Supreme Court held that a State could deny unemployment benefits to someone who was fired for illegally using peyote, regardless of the fact that the use was part of a religious observance.

Why are you here?

[ClydeCoulter]

Why are you here?

Maybe, to give an understanding of how law is applied rather than what some think it should be.

edit: The is vs the ought, thing.


Don't be daft -- the law doesn't apply to you before you were born, because before you were born there was no you.

What you probably meant to ask was how a law enacted before you were born applies to you when you come into existence if you haven't consented. This is the old issue about authority, and your posts suggest that you are one of those who doesn't recognize the authority of the law absent your explicit consent to be bound. That is a question of political philosophy, not law. Law presupposes authority, so if you want a philosophical discussion about the legitimacy of authority, ask someone else. At this point I'm only interested in the law as it's applied in the real world. And don't for one minute make the mistake of thinking that means I approve of the law as it's applied or that I think the law is always moral. Those are separate issues.

[erowe1]

Real-world judges have to decide cases on the basis of objective laws made by humans

Obviously they don't. If they did, then they would have to accept that the first amendment says what it says without regard for what some other judge said that it said.

[Sonny Tufts]

Obviously they don't. If they did, then they would have to accept that the first amendment says what it says without regard for what some other judge said that it said.

The language of the First Amendment isn't self-evident. Do you think, for example, that the Free Speech and Free Press Clauses mean there can be no libel and slander laws? Or that the Free Exercise Clause means that the government can't prohibit blood sacrifices a la the Aztecs?

[Feeding the Abscess]

Anyone want to guess who took the exact opposite position after the Citizens United ruling?

[The Free Hornet]

Do you think, for example, that the Free Speech and Free Press Clauses mean there can be no libel and slander laws?

Those are still possible when a person bound themselves to tell the truth either by being under oath, a contract, or certain commercial transactions indicative of the same. So if Fox News wants to declare itself not a news station but a funny joke telling station (or entertainment), then I encourage that disclosure.

Also, there is a HUGE distinction between civil law and criminal law. Congress doesn't need to make a lamp-breaking law for me to sue your ass because you broke my lamp.

The bigger issue is that promoting any limitation on freedom is, effectively, a blank check for much more expansive limitations. If you could somehow define from first principles a limitation to the limitations, then this might be evaluted as something other than thugish behavior.