Results 1 to 23 of 23

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

  1. #1

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

    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/mattves...-that-n2021895
    Last edited by Suzanimal; 07-07-2015 at 10:40 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul View Post
    The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    This intellectually stimulating conversation is the reason I keep coming here.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    +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.
    Last edited by sparebulb; 07-07-2015 at 10:41 AM.

  4. #3
    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)

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    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?

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    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.
    "One thing my years in Washington taught me is that most politicians are followers, not leaders. Therefore we should not waste time and resources trying to educate politicians. Politicians will not support individual liberty and limited government unless and until they are forced to do so by the people," says Ron Paul."

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    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.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by ZENemy View Post
    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.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    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.
    "One thing my years in Washington taught me is that most politicians are followers, not leaders. Therefore we should not waste time and resources trying to educate politicians. Politicians will not support individual liberty and limited government unless and until they are forced to do so by the people," says Ron Paul."



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    And you have no understanding of constitutional law.
    Awesome, proved my point, I rest my case.
    "One thing my years in Washington taught me is that most politicians are followers, not leaders. Therefore we should not waste time and resources trying to educate politicians. Politicians will not support individual liberty and limited government unless and until they are forced to do so by the people," says Ron Paul."

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by ZENemy View Post
    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.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Yes, because that's the way the law works.
    Says who? The Supreme Court?

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    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.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    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.
    Last edited by erowe1; 07-07-2015 at 12:57 PM.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    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.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    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?
    "One thing my years in Washington taught me is that most politicians are followers, not leaders. Therefore we should not waste time and resources trying to educate politicians. Politicians will not support individual liberty and limited government unless and until they are forced to do so by the people," says Ron Paul."

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by ZENemy View Post
    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.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    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.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    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?

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    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.
    "When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it—without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud—to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed." - Bastiat : The Law

    "nothing evil grows in alcohol" ~ @presence

    "I mean can you imagine what it would be like if firemen acted like police officers? They would only go into a burning house only if there's a 100% chance they won't get any burns. I mean, you've got to fully protect thy self first." ~ juleswin

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    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.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    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?

  25. #22
    Anyone want to guess who took the exact opposite position after the Citizens United ruling?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    Perhaps the most important lesson from Obamacare is that while liberty is lost incrementally, it cannot be regained incrementally. The federal leviathan continues its steady growth; sometimes boldly and sometimes quietly. Obamacare is just the latest example, but make no mistake: the statists are winning. So advocates of liberty must reject incremental approaches and fight boldly for bedrock principles.
    The epitome of libertarian populism

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    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.



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-13-2013, 06:24 PM
  2. Toomey amendment exempts faith groups from ENDA
    By VoluntaryAmerican in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-12-2013, 12:56 PM
  3. Replies: 25
    Last Post: 08-06-2013, 09:04 PM
  4. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-25-2011, 04:00 AM
  5. Replies: 92
    Last Post: 04-18-2010, 02:48 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •