Shock defeat of majority leader Eric Cantor by Tea Party sends shockwaves through Republican Party

[Chicog]

Huh?

Sent from my SM-N900T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[chuckd]

Er... no it wasn't.

Holding: As applied to closely held corporations, the regulations promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services requiring employers to provide their female employees with no-cost access to contraception violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Judgment: Affirmed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Alito on June 30, 2014. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined, and which Justice Breyer and Justice Kagan joined to all but Part III-C-1. Justice Breyer and Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/sebelius-v-hobby-lobby-stores-inc/

The decision is an interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and does not address whether such corporations are protected by the free-exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwell_v._Hobby_Lobby

The bicameral Democratic plan to respond to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Hobby Lobby case would effectively narrow the current legal interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/democrats-hobby-lobby-response-would-curtail-religious-freedom-law/?dcz=

Thanks for your response. It shows that you are trying.

Perhaps one needs to look at what the aim and intent of the RFRA really is. In a nutshell it is...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Religious Freedom Restoration Act Law & Legal Definition

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 is a federal law that aims at preventing laws that substantially burden a person's free exercise of their religion.

The purpose of the act was to protect religious individuals and organizations against government interference with the practice of their faith. One can bring a lawsuit against the federal, state, or local government if s/he belief that laws or other governmental action substantially burdened their religious practices. In such actions, the government must demonstrate that its actions served a compelling interest and that there were no less restrictive ways to accomplish its goals.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/religious-freedom-restoration-act%20/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Free exercise of one's religion is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

That is, ultimately, the controlling document in this case.

Cheers

[Chicog]

Thanks for your response. It shows that you are trying.

Perhaps one needs to look at what the aim and intent of the RFRA really is. In a nutshell it is...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Religious Freedom Restoration Act Law & Legal Definition

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 is a federal law that aims at preventing laws that substantially burden a person's free exercise of their religion.

The purpose of the act was to protect religious individuals and organizations against government interference with the practice of their faith. One can bring a lawsuit against the federal, state, or local government if s/he belief that laws or other governmental action substantially burdened their religious practices. In such actions, the government must demonstrate that its actions served a compelling interest and that there were no less restrictive ways to accomplish its goals.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/religious-freedom-restoration-act%20/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Free exercise of one's religion is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

That is, ultimately, the controlling document in this case.

Cheers

Which doesn't contradict what I said, which is that the ruling is based on the RFRA, not the First Amendment.

It's there in black and white, however you wish to spin it.

Which of course means that (in theory) the law can be changed without an Amendment to the Constitution.

[chuckd]

Thanks for your response. It shows that you are trying.

Perhaps one needs to look at what the aim and intent of the RFRA really is. In a nutshell it is...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Religious Freedom Restoration Act Law & Legal Definition

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 is a federal law that aims at preventing laws that substantially burden a person's free exercise of their religion.

The purpose of the act was to protect religious individuals and organizations against government interference with the practice of their faith. One can bring a lawsuit against the federal, state, or local government if s/he belief that laws or other governmental action substantially burdened their religious practices. In such actions, the government must demonstrate that its actions served a compelling interest and that there were no less restrictive ways to accomplish its goals.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/religious-freedom-restoration-act%20/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Free exercise of one's religion is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

That is, ultimately, the controlling document in this case.

Cheers

Which doesn't contradict what I said, which is that the ruling is based on the RFRA, not the First Amendment.

It's there in black and white, however you wish to spin it.

Which of course means that (in theory) the law can be changed without an Amendment to the Constitution.

Any law can be changed...unless it or any changes are struck down by the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional.

Changing the Constitution is somewhat more laborious.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Cheers

[Chicog]

Any law can be changed...unless it or any changes are struck down by the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional.

Changing the Constitution is somewhat more laborious.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Cheers

With what are you disagreeing?

It's there in black and white.

Come on, you're supposed to be "kicking my tail".

Holding: As applied to closely held corporations, the regulations promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services requiring employers to provide their female employees with no-cost access to contraception violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

[chuckd]

If the regulations requiring employers to provide no cost contraception benefits " violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act."

and the Religious Freedom Act has been declared constitutional, which it has, then the regulations are in violation of article 1 of the Constitution.

Everything revolves around the "free exercise" clause in article 1.

Edit in: Oops, it isn't article 1, it is the First Amendment.

[Chicog]

Ah OK, a bit of good old fashioned hair-splitting, even thought the ruling is quite explicit.

I getcha.