Republican controlled house says.."DEFUND Obamacare, or we're SHUTTING the GOVT. DOWN "

[Ifly2]

COTUS will hear arguments this session on this subject.

Fly, you need a link?

If you are talking about Greece v Galloway, no, but thank you.

That case is about whether a govt body may open a meeting with prayer or invocation, which is incidental to, not the reason for, the meeting.

It is not about the government supplying a place for and paying for a service to be conducted by a particular religion.

Different arguments. One the court will hear, one they will not, at least not this session.

FTR, I really don't have a problem with military chaplains, provided that access is equal to all, and in cases where the installation only supports one, that that one is impartial in the performance of his duties.

I am confident that the vast majority are.

OTOH, if the facility is closed, it is closed.

Been around the church enough to know that mass can be offered anywhere, anytime.

IOW, This is another non-issue being spun into yet another RWCJ.

So y'all sit at your keyboards, open up a window each for Rush, Mommy Roth, and whatever other radical right wing fear porn gets you going, and keep right on stroking each other's scared little reactionary minds and overblown sense of all that is right and good.

If that is what makes ya' feel good.

I do truly hope you enjoy it.

 

[delldude]

If you are talking about Greece v Galloway, no, but thank you.

That case is about whether a govt body may open a meeting with prayer or invocation, which is incidental to, not the reason for, the meeting.

It is not about the government supplying a place for and paying for a service to be conducted by a particular religion.

Different arguments. One the court will hear, one they will not, at least not this session.

FTR, I really don't have a problem with military chaplains, provided that access is equal to all, and in cases where the installation only supports one, that that one is impartial in the performance of his duties.

I am confident that the vast majority are.

OTOH, if the facility is closed, it is closed.

Been around the church enough to know that mass can be offered anywhere, anytime.

IOW, This is another non-issue being spun into yet another RWCJ.

So y'all sit at your keyboards, open up a window each for Rush, Mommy Roth, and whatever other radical right wing fear porn gets you going, and keep right on stroking each other's scared little reactionary minds and overblown sense of all that is right and good.

If that is what makes ya' feel good.

I do truly hope you enjoy it.

Yeah.....How could something like this slip by YOU?

Mommy Roth:

By next spring, the justices are likely to revisit part of President Obama's healthcare law to decide a religious-rights challenge to the requirement that large private employers provide their workers with coverage for contraceptives. Dozens of employers who run for-profit companies have sued, contending that providing health insurance that includes a full range of contraceptives violates their religious beliefs.

 

[Ifly2]

Maybe because I don't read Canada Free Press

Or any other ideologically driven site.

Or sit around digging things up to be scared of.

If it turns out they do take the case, next spring, then I am sure I will hear about it, and probably be interested enough to read up on it.

If they don't, well, then, it just doesn't matter.

I won't be posting three paragraphs of fantasy fear and conjecture from some radical blogger on a public MB about it.

 

[Knotbuyinit]

Or, Wait for it.... Here.....

Either....

http://www.law.corne.../text/42/2000cc

42 USC § 2000cc - Protection of land use as religious exercise


So... Where is it again?

Or does all that education and experience cause you to just go around blowing smoke out your hole?

Look, I don't want you to get the impression that I don't appreciate your copy and paste skills or your limited knowledge of constitutional laws, you certainly are the master of the copy / paste. However, you need to take a little more time and think about why there is a constitutional requirement to have chaplains and worship facilities in the military. It's not like this issue hasn't been brought up before and it's not the first time the constitutionality of Chaplains and worship facilities has been addressed.

Lets take a closer look for the constitutional requirements stated in 10 U.S.C. § 3547. Now, after reading and understanding the requirement (if that's possible) do a quick read of Katcoff v March where the said constitutional requirement was challenged as a violation of the Establishment Clause.

Congress, in the exercise of its powers under Art. I, § 8, of the Constitution to provide for the conduct of our national defense, has established an Army for the purpose of "preserving the peace and security, and providing for the defense, of the United States," 10 U.S.C. § 3062(a), and has directed that the "organized peace establishment of the Army" consist of all organizations and persons "necessary to form the basis for a complete and immediate mobilization for the national defense in the event of a national emergency," 10 U.S.C. § 3062(d). It has specifically authorized that as part of this establishment there be "Chaplains in the Army," who shall include the Chief of Chaplains, and commissioned and other officers of the Army appointed as chaplains. 10 U.S.C. § 3073. Under 10 U.S.C. § 3547 each chaplain is required, when practicable, to hold religious services for the command to which he is assigned and to perform burial services for soldiers who die while in that command. The statute also obligates the commanding officer to furnish facilities, including transportation, to assist a chaplain in performing his duties.

I eagerly await your copy and paste rebuttal.

 

[Ms Tree]

Oh, I don't know, maybe the First and Fourteenth Amendments? Or is it the Free Exercise Clause or maybe the Establishment Clause. I'm also thinking the Religious Freedom Restoration Act or the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons.

1st provides for the free exercise of religion which has not been inhibited in any way. The 14th provides for equal protection and again, there has been no law prohibiting the free exercise of religious belief. The RFRA dictates that the Fed may not pass any law that creates an undue burden on the free exercise of religion and no law has been passed that does. No idea where you pulled RLUIPA out of as it is a zoning and land use law that has no bearing on military chaplains being available to conduct services.

Bottom line is there is nothing in the COTUS saying that the Fed needs to provide the military with chaplains. There are no laws or regulations so far as I am aware prohibiting military personnel from practicing their religious beliefs as they see fit.

The 1st and 14th only specify what the government may or may not do. There are no guarantees any where in the COTUS for chaplains to be provided to the military. There are also no guarantees to drive a car, own a home or get Ben and Jerry's. The 1st only says the Fed may not restrict the free expression of religion. The 14th just says that any law passed by the Fed/state or other government entity must apply equally to all (which is why the prohibition against same sex marriage will ultimately fail). The USC is just a code that must apply by the COTUS. The COTUS does not guarantee the chaplains, the appeals court found that the code does not violate the COTUS. There is a difference. The COTUS does not address the issue of DL's to drive a motor vehicle, the codes and laws requiring a DL do not violate the COTUS.

I agree with the appeals court that the law does not violate the 14th. I just think it's a waste of tax payer money. If someone wants to practice they faith they can do it when ever they choose with out the aid of tax dollars.

 

[Ifly2]

Once again, you resort to attacking me, or my writing style, rather than addressing the issue, or the inaccuracies, errors, or lies - whichever they are, in your own posts.

Copy/paste is a tool. Why not use it? Why should I rewrite, or paraphrase, what the founders wrote, or published law?

I did write a long and fairly comprehensive response to your earlier criticism. One you, again, chose not to respond to in any substantive manner.

BTW, all four of your first references support the right to exercise one's faith/religion without interference from the federal government. Not one of them provides for the federal government to supply a place and pay the priest, or other practitioner.

The constitution certainly does not.

Federal code provides for military chaplains.

Fine.

In this case, congress has declined to continue paying the bills, and required the executive branch to shut down unnecessary functions. Take it up with them.

 

[southwind]

Where in the Constitution does it state that the US Government will supply the facilities and pay for the services of Catholic services?

Where in the constitution does it say the government shall provide healthcare?

 

[Ms Tree]

Where in the constitution does it say the government shall provide healthcare?

Where in the COTUS does it say you can drive a car, own a home or have a computer? You really have no idea how the US government works do you?

 

[delldude]

230 Republican members voted to DEFY the United States Supreme Court Ruling, and IF they didn't get thier way, then THEY would Vote (TAKE THIER BALL and GO HOME) so no one could play !

2 3 0 members !!!!

BUT, further analysis reveals MORE.

Of the 230,...."ONE HALF" ,(115)....reside 'South of the Mason Dixon Line' .

I never realized that Human Beings living in these states did not have Deadly physical conditions that would have desperately needed health care, but alas, they couldn't have bought it with GOLD(even if they had GOLD) because of a PREXISTING CONDITION !

I never realized that the hospitals in those state were comfortable with desperate people 'jamming up' thier EMEG. Wards !

PS,
Bye the way, does anyone know what NEWT/'95 is saying about strategy like this ?

(Move Along..'southwind. NOTHING to see here) !

 

[southwind]

Yawn. Bears is stuck on labels and the 2016 election, and hoping 2014 will just be swept under the rug....

Conservatives have a pretty good memory. Most Obama voters can't even name the Vice President, the Speaker, or the Senate majority leader and tell you why the first two are important, and the third one isn't.

Yep! If the Demorats can't dredge up another black candidate, there goes half the voter base..........."Ain't nobody got time for 'dat"!

 

[southwind]

Where in the COTUS does it say you can drive a car, own a home or have a computer? You really have no idea how the US government works do you?

Please show us where auto.gov, house.gov or computer.gov is?

I found Healthcare.gov !
https://www.healthcare.gov/marketplace/individual/?gclid=CKruv8uAhLoCFbE7MgodqhkA0w

 

[Dog Wonder]

Yep! If the Demorats can't dredge up another black candidate, there goes half the voter base..........."Ain't nobody got time for 'dat"!

If the Republicans can't dredge up a crotchety incontinent, there goes the Tea Party. If they can, there goes everybody else.

 

[Knotbuyinit]

Once again, you resort to attacking me, or my writing style, rather than addressing the issue, or the inaccuracies, errors, or lies - whichever they are, in your own posts.

Copy/paste is a tool. Why not use it? Why should I rewrite, or paraphrase, what the founders wrote, or published law?

I did write a long and fairly comprehensive response to your earlier criticism. One you, again, chose not to respond to in any substantive manner.

BTW, all four of your first references support the right to exercise one's faith/religion without interference from the federal government. Not one of them provides for the federal government to supply a place and pay the priest, or other practitioner.

The constitution certainly does not.

Federal code provides for military chaplains.

Fine.

In this case, congress has declined to continue paying the bills, and required the executive branch to shut down unnecessary functions. Take it up with them.

The last I checked, military personnel, including Military Chaplains, were being paid, as are 80% of the federal staff. It's not really a government shutdown so to say. Like Sequestration, Obama decides to throw a little childish hissy fit and makes life as hard as possible for all taxpayers just to get his way.

You lose.

Not one of them provides for the federal government to supply a place and pay the priest, or other practitioner.

Oh but it does! What part of "the Establishment Cause is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution that states Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" don't you get?

You lose.

Poor little baby! You got exactly what you deserve! I call it an old fashion smack down. You really didn't think I was going to let you get away with the comment about me blowing smoke up your ass did you? My point, since it seems to have gone completely over your head, is that you should read carefully what you so hastily copy and paste. Each of the 4 items I replied to KCFlyer's post with encompass what is established in Establishment Cause.

Isn't it time for you to log off and let Ms Tree log in so you can uptick your own posts?

 

[Ifly2]

So, let's get this real clear:

In your mind the phrase "Make no law regarding establishment of religion means that "the federal government shall supply a place for and pay the priest to conduct Catholic services"???

Is that what you claim?

(That was the original question.... Remember? )

If so, that is a might fine Stretchy mind you have got there Dude.

Seriously, you do,have to be kidding, right?


Once again, you declare victory for yourself, because... Wellll.... Because, well,,you say so...

Wrong.

You lose.

And, worse than just being wrong, you double down on it.

What was the point of all that education you bragged about?

Maybe you should try a Sylvan reading for comprehension course. I'm sure there is one coming to your area soon.


It mighthelp you to understand that the hissy fit is being trown by a small minority of the Republican party, the TeaBaggers,,whomdidn't get their way in the legislative process, forty-somrthing times, or the Supreme Court, and are now going to hold their breath until they pass out.

Everyone knows that a clean bill would pass, with generous Republican support.

Obama, and the Senate Democrats, is and are just playin' a bit of hardball, as he should. If he let a small group of ideologues run roughshod over the entire process, like Boehner has, he actually would be as weak as y'all like to claim he is, and Boehner actually is.

You are just a sore loser. So you pick up your Bible and wrqp yourself in the flag and keep doubling down on your desire to enforce religous tyranny on the good and free people of the United States.

Guess what, Dude?

Thay ain't havin' it.

You lose, again.

Reality bites, for all you flat-earthers, but, really, this ain't Mayberry anymore.

Probably time to start gettin' used to it.

 

[Ifly2]

FWIW,



ACA is not govt health care

It is health insurance legislation

Without it, something close to half the American people already got their care paid for, or heavily subsidized by, the government.

(Medicare, medicaid primarily. TriCare, etc., for the rest...)

All of it is constitutional, under the "provide for the general welfare" clause.

Just as the gov't paying for military chaplains is authorized under the " provide for the common defense" clause. (Not unfer the establishment or free exercise clauses, Dell...)

Same extension of powers. Neither is specifically authorized or required by the Constitution specifically, but authorized by legislation passed by Congress, using the powers and process provided for in the constitution.