Michael Gaynor
Will Chief Justice Roberts do the right thing this time?
By Michael Gaynor
Chief Justice Roberts is obligated to follow the Constitution, not entitled to rewrite it to please President Obama.
When it came to Obamacare (referred to by deceitful "progressives" as 'the Affordable Care Act"), Chief Justice John Roberts joined with the SCOTUS "progressives" to declare it constitutional.
Fittingly, he did so by treating what the Obamacare supporters insisted was not a tax as...A TAX!
That dashed the hopes of constitutionalists that the Supreme Court would not put its imprimatur of what was a blatant, politically driven fraud on the American people.
President Obama should have been estopped from trying to uphold it as a tax, after proclaiming repeatedly that it wasn't a tax in order to have Congress pass it.
Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc..
At issue is religious freedom.
Will the first Roman Catholic Chief Justice of the United States fail again?
Recently, Cardinal Raymond Burke, the head of the Apostolic Signatura, the Vatican's highest court, publicly stated that President Obama's policies "have become progressively more hostile toward Christian civilization."
Hopefully, Chief Justice Roberts took note.
Cardinal Burke warned that President Obama is trying to restrict religious freedom and compel individuals, outside of his or her place of worship, "to act against his rightly-formed conscience, even in the most serious of moral questions.
The First Amendment explicitly protects freedom of religion, not merely freedom of religious worship.
Chief Justice Roberts, take note.
Cardinal Burke described President Obama as "appear[ing] to be a totally secularized man who aggressively promotes anti-life and anti-family policies."
That's clear.
Cardinal Burke continued: "Now [President Obama] wants to restrict the exercise of the freedom of religion to freedom of worship, that is, he holds that one is free to act according to his conscience within the confines of his place of worship but that, once the person leaves the place of worship, the government can constrain him to act against his rightly-formed conscience, even in the most serious of moral questions."
"Such policies would have been unimaginable in the United States even 40 years ago."
Such policies would have been unconstitutional 40 years ago, or 220 years ago, and are unconstitutional.
The First Amendment has not been amended since it was adopted in the eighteenth century.
It is not for the Supreme Court to amend it under the guise of interpreting it.
Chief Justice Roberts is obligated to follow the Constitution, not to rewrite it to please President Obama.
© Michael Gaynor
March 24, 2014
Chief Justice Roberts is obligated to follow the Constitution, not entitled to rewrite it to please President Obama.
When it came to Obamacare (referred to by deceitful "progressives" as 'the Affordable Care Act"), Chief Justice John Roberts joined with the SCOTUS "progressives" to declare it constitutional.
Fittingly, he did so by treating what the Obamacare supporters insisted was not a tax as...A TAX!
That dashed the hopes of constitutionalists that the Supreme Court would not put its imprimatur of what was a blatant, politically driven fraud on the American people.
President Obama should have been estopped from trying to uphold it as a tax, after proclaiming repeatedly that it wasn't a tax in order to have Congress pass it.
Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc..
At issue is religious freedom.
Will the first Roman Catholic Chief Justice of the United States fail again?
Recently, Cardinal Raymond Burke, the head of the Apostolic Signatura, the Vatican's highest court, publicly stated that President Obama's policies "have become progressively more hostile toward Christian civilization."
Hopefully, Chief Justice Roberts took note.
Cardinal Burke warned that President Obama is trying to restrict religious freedom and compel individuals, outside of his or her place of worship, "to act against his rightly-formed conscience, even in the most serious of moral questions.
The First Amendment explicitly protects freedom of religion, not merely freedom of religious worship.
Chief Justice Roberts, take note.
Cardinal Burke described President Obama as "appear[ing] to be a totally secularized man who aggressively promotes anti-life and anti-family policies."
That's clear.
Cardinal Burke continued: "Now [President Obama] wants to restrict the exercise of the freedom of religion to freedom of worship, that is, he holds that one is free to act according to his conscience within the confines of his place of worship but that, once the person leaves the place of worship, the government can constrain him to act against his rightly-formed conscience, even in the most serious of moral questions."
"Such policies would have been unimaginable in the United States even 40 years ago."
Such policies would have been unconstitutional 40 years ago, or 220 years ago, and are unconstitutional.
The First Amendment has not been amended since it was adopted in the eighteenth century.
It is not for the Supreme Court to amend it under the guise of interpreting it.
Chief Justice Roberts is obligated to follow the Constitution, not to rewrite it to please President Obama.
© Michael Gaynor
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
