Us Courts Establish Government As The Official Religion Of United States.

Thats my point.

By your own admission you do not understand the premises being argued despite my explaining them you.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . . "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". . .

I even gave you the definition of exercise, either people have the right to exercise their religion or they do not.

Which is it?

Yes they do_______
No they do not______

 

There is no such language in the constitution. you made that up.

 

Good so then we agree it is not in the constitution.

 

and that is yet another failure in distinction.

That is how a counterfeit court works not the constitution.

 

Well you can suggest it but I dont intend to waste my time.

First your questions have been answered and you admit you do not understand the answers.

IOW; I state the bank is empty, and you posit an argument that your money has to be in the bank because you put it there, so and so and such and such said it was there.

I would suggest take a paralegal course so you understand how the core system is set up and works.



At this point if you want to list all the types of law in their order of standing I would entertain something like that. Otherwise I have already proven my point several times over.

 

But you see thats not true, not only have I posted my definition ad infinitum, I even went so far as to use your definition to prove it and posted your definition ad infinitum only to have you ask for my definition, then when I explain it you dont understand, or you restate what I give you adding your own spin constantly changing the meaning of what I post. The OP was not intended to be a shallow battle dictionary of citations that you demand. I have proven the point, any attorney with a neutral position would agree, the problem is you and your friends do not recognize it, and I tried to extend every courtesy to you by posting sources and you refuse to read them. I even gave you an avenue I would still be willing to argue with you, but for me to simply continue going around in the never ending circles you insist on creating is ridiculous.

 

I guess the US court of law must be a religion too. LOL

 

as previously defined, another branch, yeh. They know protected rights trump administrative yet they rule for admin anyway..

 

Dont even try to put that on me.

Its your own admission!

Here you again.

Pretending your alleged (mostly strawman) analysis's have not been rebutted, failing to understand or acknowledge which ever, it doesnt matter, again proving these arguments are outside your knowledge base or you are incredulous or you are spinning, there are no other choices at this stage since you were given appropriate references and fail to rebut my arguments. SORRY

to wit:

You had no problem identifying its type when you attempted to use YOUR definition against me, and now that I used YOUR definition against you to prove my point you pretend that you do not know what type it is, and that posting style really looks like willful negligence if not contrived. SORRY

Its impossible to debate with people who create black holes by spinning everything, only to claim lack of understanding when their arguments have been disposed of. SORRY I asked you to stop but you continue anyway.

 

SHERBERT v. VERNER ET AL., MEMBERS OF SOUTH CAROLINA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
374 U.S. 398
June 17, 1963, Decided​

The appellee Employment Security Commission, in administrative proceedings under the statute, found that appellant's restriction upon her availability for Saturday work brought her within the provision disqualifying for benefits insured workers who fail, without good cause, to accept "suitable work when offered . . . by the employment office or the employer . . . ." The Commission's finding was sustained by the Court of Common Pleas for Spartanburg County. That court's judgment was in turn affirmed by the South Carolina Supreme Court, which rejected appellant's contention that, as applied to her, the disqualifying provisions of the South Carolina statute abridged her right to the free exercise of her religion secured under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment through the Fourteenth Amendment.....


MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

I.

The door of the Free Exercise Clause stands tightly closed against any governmental regulation of religious beliefs as such.

Government may neither compel affirmation of a repugnant belief; nor penalize or discriminate against individuals or groups because they [those who] hold religious views abhorrent to the authorities;

nor employ the taxing power to inhibit [or advance] the dissemination of particular religious views. On the other hand, the Court has rejected challenges under the Free Exercise Clause to governmental regulation of certain overt acts prompted by religious beliefs or principles, for "even when the action is in accord with one's religious convictions, [it] is not totally free from legislative restrictions." The conduct or actions so regulated have invariably posed some substantial threat to public safety, peace or order. See, e. g., Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145.

The court made it clear that everything also has some limit at some point, the test for that limit, meaning where it kicks in is restricted to the following: posed some substantial threat to public safety, peace or order.

[which means bring down the government, cause imminent danger to the community, or cause rioting in the streets.]

Plainly enough, appellant's conscientious objection to Saturday work constitutes no conduct prompted by religious principles of a kind within the reach of state legislation. If, therefore, the decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court is to withstand appellant's constitutional challenge, it must be either because her disqualification as a beneficiary represents no infringement by the State of her constitutional rights of free exercise, or because any incidental burden on the free exercise of appellant's religion may be justified by a "compelling state interest [threat to public safety, peace or order.] in the regulation of a subject within the State's constitutional power to regulate . . . ."

II.

We turn first to the question whether the disqualification for benefits imposes any burden on the free exercise of appellant's religion. We think it is clear that it does.

In a sense the consequences of such a disqualification to religious principles and practices may be only an indirect result of welfare legislation within the State's general competence to enact; it is true that no criminal sanctions directly compel appellant to work a six-day week. But this is only the beginning, not the end, of our inquiry.

As we can see there its just not as simple as some peoples hatred for religion.

For "if the purpose or effect of a law is to impede the observance of one or all religions or is to discriminate invidiously between religions, that law is constitutionally invalid even though the burden may be characterized as being only indirect." Braunfeld v. Brown.

The court sets the guidelines how to interpret the meaning of the constitution.

Here not only is it apparent that appellant's declared ineligibility for benefits derives solely from the practice of her religion, but the pressure upon her to forego that practice is unmistakable.

Recognition of government force to force her into compliance with the government.

The ruling forces her to choose between following the precepts of her religion and forfeiting benefits, on the one hand, and abandoning one of the precepts of her religion in order to accept work, on the other hand.

The court recognizes HER RIGHT to exercise her religion above the law of the united states.

Governmental imposition of such a choice puts the same kind of burden upon the free exercise of religion as would a fine imposed against appellant for her Saturday worship.

Nor may the South Carolina court's construction of the statute be saved from constitutional infirmity on the ground that unemployment compensation benefits are not appellant's "right" but merely a "privilege." It is too late in the day to doubt that the liberties of religion and expression may be infringed by the denial of or placing of conditions upon a benefit or privilege. ...

Acknowledges the government cannot claim privilege as so many people on this board insist.

Which means that the government cannot claim it has any authority because they are the government outside of imminent danger/threat.

....To condition the availability of benefits upon this appellant's willingness to violate a cardinal principle of her religious faith effectively penalizes the free exercise of her constitutional liberties.

Clarifies again the state law penalized and infringed upon her right to exercise her religion.

Significantly South Carolina expressly saves the Sunday worshiper from having to make the kind of choice which we here hold infringes the Sabbatarian's religious liberty.

Court takes notice of religious discrimnation

When in times of "national emergency" the textile plants are authorized by the State Commissioner of Labor to operate on Sunday, "no employee shall be required to work on Sunday . . . who is conscientiously opposed to Sunday work; and if any employee should refuse to work on Sunday on account of conscientious . . . objections he or she shall not jeopardize his or her seniority by such refusal or be discriminated against in any other manner." No question of the disqualification of a Sunday worshiper for benefits is likely to arise, since we cannot suppose that an employer will discharge him in violation of this statute.

The unconstitutionality of the disqualification of the Sabbatarian is thus compounded by the religious discrimination which South Carolina's general statutory scheme necessarily effects.



This woman exercised the right of the people reserved in the constitution.

The court correctly recognized HER RESERVED RIGHTS ABOVE the law of the United States.

The right to exercise your religion stands above the law of the US with rare exceptions under extreme circumstances of imminent danger, threat or emergency.

This among other reasons is why I continually point out the strawman arguments those who enjoin the statist overlord position insist on making despite they are frivolous.

Unless of course someone can come up with some bonafide imminent danger to the public for cases like the mormons polygamy, kliens wedding cake, forced to sign marriage licenses all fall under violations by government against the people of the first amendment.