Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the contraception mandate

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Quantum Windbag, Feb 15, 2012.

  1. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    I wonder if Nancy and Reid remember the law that they helped pass back in 1993. The Supreme Court was essentially erasing the 1st Amendment by establishing a rule that the government could do anything, even build a road through Indian tribes sacred land, as long as the law generally applied to everyone, unless the petitioner could prove the government was actually coercing or punishing them for their beliefs. As I have argued repeatedly, even under that standard, the mandate does not pass muster. Unfortunately for Obama, the RFRA actually imposes a duty on the government that was not met in this case.

    That means that, not only is the mandate unconstitutional, it is actually illegal under federal law.

    Isn't Obama supposed to be a law professor? Doesn't he have lawyers working for him? Does he honestly think no one would notice this?


    Rivkin and Whelan: Birth-Control Mandate—Unconstitutional and Illegal - WSJ.com
     
  2. GuyPinestra
    Offline

    GuyPinestra Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2012
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    667
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +669
    An excellent article, and spot on in it's clarity. I'm guessing this will shoot a great big hole in this mandate, and at the same time pull back the curtain on a Constitution-violating, power-hungry, soon-to-be EX-President!
     
  3. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,542
    Thanks Received:
    8,161
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,157
    Only one problem. Excluding Constitutional law, all Federal law is equal. Which means the latest rules take precedence over the previous rules. It may have been illegal under the 1993 law, but when they passed new legislation the new legislation takes precedence over earlier contradictions.
     
  4. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    Was there something in the PPACA I missed that talked about religion?
     
  5. oreo
    Offline

    oreo Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    12,447
    Thanks Received:
    1,960
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    rocky mountains
    Ratings:
    +4,150

    Well we have a GOP candidate right now in Rick Santorum--stating that States have the right to ban birth control devices--when it was also slapped down in a U.S. Supreme court decision in 1965.

    Griswold V. Connecticut: Birth Control and the Constitutional Right of Privacy.
     
  6. The T
    Offline

    The T George S. Patton Party Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    48,072
    Thanks Received:
    5,473
    Trophy Points:
    1,773
    Location:
    What USED TO BE A REPUBLIC RUN BY TYRANTS
    Ratings:
    +5,502
    There you go with SANTORUM again...


    Son? Get over it.

    DON'T vote for him...Jesus Christ.
     
  7. ladyliberal
    Offline

    ladyliberal Progressive Princess

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2011
    Messages:
    1,253
    Thanks Received:
    291
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +291
    It's not necessary for a new law to specifically note all the ways it supersedes old laws. Assuming that federal agencies are implementing PPACA provisions, I don't believe they need to worry about prior laws that would have limited them pre-PPACA.

    The WSJ article amounts to a spectacularly poor legal argument, and one that the authors don't even claim would prevail in court. However, it is interesting for another reason. The authors argue that the federal government could provide contraceptives free to every American rather than require insurers to pay for them. In other words, the authors-- one of whom challenged PPACA in court-- are arguing not for a public option, not for single-payer, but for an actual government-run healthcare program, and one in a politically contentious area.
     
  8. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    Want me to point out the Democrats on this board that support sterilization of people to avoid expensive pregnancies?

    By the way, when did Santorum actually say states should be able to ban birth control?
     
  9. The T
    Offline

    The T George S. Patton Party Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    48,072
    Thanks Received:
    5,473
    Trophy Points:
    1,773
    Location:
    What USED TO BE A REPUBLIC RUN BY TYRANTS
    Ratings:
    +5,502
    He didn't. Oreo is under some dillusion that he did...
     
  10. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    If we assume that the RFRA does not apply simply because it is old does that mean we can ignore the PPACA in 9 years? If not, how does your argument actually make sense?

    By the way, the author is pointing out that the government could do something that, if it did, would be less restrictive of religious liberty. In other words, that is a less restrictive option that is available because the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that taxes are levied to fund the government, and no one can dispute how taxes are spent once they are collected. That alternative would be constitutional, legal, and, while controversial to a few extremists, would take people like me out of the argument because we understand the difference between government sector spending and private sector spending.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

content