Whatever Happened To Free Expression Of Religion?

This is a case about the free exercise of religion and applies the Federal Bill of Rights to a state. This is a legal fallacy that in currently practiced by the federal government to give them authority over the states in place the U.S. Constitution does not grant them any. The people have chosen to tolerate this act of tyranny and the violation of the U.S. Constitution. The federal courts began selectively applying the Federal Bill of Rights on states beginning in the 1897 to protect corporations from state regulation which is a conservative action. This violation did not really get going until the 1940’s and 1950’s when the liberals took over the unelected oligarchy that is known as the Supreme Court. From what I understand they use the due process of law clause. There is nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment to define what the due process of law is so as long as every individual receives the same due process of law then the Fourteenth Amendment is not violated. In the Federal government the military and civilian courts have two different due process of law. Court proceedings were overturned in the 1878 Reynolds decision, which I mention later, because Utah state due process was violated when federal due process rule were used. It is my hope the people will get sick and tired of the federal governments usurpation of their rights and demand that they live according to the rule of law. In violating their constitutional oaths and the law the Justices who defend this unlawful action prove they do not have the good character required in federal Justices according the U.S. Constitution.

Since we have to work with the current situation as unpleasant as it is the Catholic Church has a point when they state their freedom of religion has been infringed on in this case involving manditory supplying of contraceptives. First I will mention the court ruling in the state of New York which mandated that the Catholic church has to obey a state law that forces them to provide contraceptives in contradiction to the church's free exercise of religion. The state decided that because the Catholic Charity organization, even though owned by the church, was not a religious organization because it employed non Catholics. Since it was not a religious organization then the New York exceptation to the law did not apply.

I can see the state court's reasoning though it seems to violate the legal lie known as secularism as it gives the idea that an organization may be separate from religion as long as it employs people of various religious affiliations. I do not know of very many if any government entities including public schools that employs only members of one religious sect. The only time the U.S. Constitution mentions religious practices is when it forbids Congress from infringing on the free exercise of them. There are exception such as granting the President Sunday off which is obviously a blue law.

Judges whose duty it is to smooth out such contradiction in law often make them when they choose to legislate from the bench. Legislation is best accomplished by legislators and Judges should stick to what they are supposed to be good at and that is judging through the correct application of the law.

The Catholic Church is the one who calls up the First Amendment and states that their freedom of religious expression has been infringe by the state courts interpretation of this law. This brings up a The Reynolds Decision otherwise known as the 1878 Supreme Court Case of Reynolds v The United States and about whether the government had the rights to infringe on Reynolds free expression of religion in the case of polygamy. The Court found that the government had the authority to outlaw polygamy because it had always been “odious” among the nations of northern and western Europe and because it led to “stationary despotism”. Neither of these can be said for contraception and its use has even been “odious” among the People of the United States until about fifty years ago. I doubt that a case can even be made that it improves a woman’s health since pregnancy is not a disease contrary to the claim of some New York judges. The side effects would actually say the opposite.

In order to win their case on free expression of religion the Catholic Church will have to put contraceptives on trial. That would be interesting to see. I do not see a way for contraceptives to win considering the evidence against it starting with the fact the Sexual Revolution and all its damage to our culture is linked to a number of Supreme Court rulings that include the 1965 Supreme Court case of Griswold v. Connecticut that stuck down the legislation banning contraceptives distribution. The problem is the pharmaceutical industry makes a lot of money off contraceptives and will be weighing in against overturning or weakening Griswold v. Connecticut. The other cases were were mostly linked to the pornography industry which is also a large money maker.

Source 1 is article about New York court ruling infringing on the Catholic Churches free expression of religion.

Source 2 is The Reynolds Decision.

Source 3 Griswold v Connecticut.