If Congress, which passed both RFRA and Obamacare, believes RFRA’s application goes too far, Congress could decide to repeal all or part of RFRA.
Why attempts to convince state and local governmental officials that they can ignore Supreme Court decisions are legally incorrect and could lead to a Constitutional crisis.
Political careers are made by identifying, or in some cases creating, amorphous bogeymen who have nothing in mind but the destruction of “The Constitution” and the “American way of life.” The call to get rid of the bogeyman and “all will be well” is a pernicious promise.
Have you ever wondered what legal mechanism existed that permitted the legalization of slavery in the United States after the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791? How it was that men, women, and children were held in bondage after Francis Scott Key wrote the famous words, “land of the free, and the home of the brave” in 1812? How segregation persisted in law until the late 1960s?
Americans United for Separation of Church and State issued an open letter to the mayors of Philadelphia, New York, and Washington, DC, among other government leaders on August 31, 2015 calling for them to maintain separation of church and state during Pope Francis’ visit to the U.S. in September.
This morning, Democrats in the U.S. Senate announced that they have the 34 votes necessary to uphold the President’s expected veto if Congress, as expected, passes a resolution disapproving the Obama administration’s deal with Iran. The international agreement is supposed to result in a dismantling of the Iranian nuclear program in return for lifting of sanctions, but given the Iranian leadership’s ongoing theme of “death to America” and “death to Israel” the deal certainly does not signify a sense of international friendship.
[dc]A[/dc]fter a lengthy legal battle, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled unanimously (see Reed v. Gilbert  , decided June 18, 2015) that a town cannot bar church signs when it […]
The Supreme Court ruled that a prospective employer’s perceived need to accommodate religious beliefs as a “motivating factor” not to hire violates Title VII.
California’s proposed assisted-suicide bill does not require psychiatric evaluations which would rule-out depression, fear or anxiety as a primary motive for requesting assisted suicide, and does not provide adequate checks and balances to ensure that the disabled and elderly are protected. It could also lead to an increase in non-therapeutic suicides as it becomes socially acceptable. It costs only $35-50 for life-ending “medication” as opposed to hundreds of thousands of dollars for terminal healthcare, thus the cost-saving incentive is significant.
If there’s any doubt about the truth of the aphorism that you should not assume things, this is Exhibit A.