The proper role and scope of government

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Ibram

How?

You can't be that dense.

What one state does at a state level has nothing to do with what happens at a national level. What the Fed does as a mandate has to do with all the states at every level, and in this case it violates the Constitution and Obama lacks the power to do it. If I were my state I would give him the finger and completely ignore the fool.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

You can't be that dense.

What one state does at a state level has nothing to do with what happens at a national level. What the Fed does as a mandate has to do with all the states at every level, and in this case it violates the Constitution and Obama lacks the power to do it. If I were my state I would give him the finger and completely ignore the fool.

HOW is it unconstitutional to force religiously-identified private employers to insure birth control, but LEGAL and constitutional to force them to insure, for example, remarried employees?

You have NOT yet answered what the difference is.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Ibram

HOW is it unconstitutional to force religiously-identified private employers to insure birth control, but LEGAL and constitutional to force them to insure, for example, remarried employees?

You have NOT yet answered what the difference is.

Simple, your example used state court findings which were confined to what the states did. Obama is using the Federal pulpit, which, IMHO and many others, is an unconstitutional mandate. It is really not all that difficult.

[Lamplighter]

While some have focused on the "contraception" issue, I've posted previously
that this is a fight by the Council of Bishops that goes far beyond birth control.

But the push back from the public is giving some Bishops concern,
and the thrust of their fight may be changing in more obvious ways.

Reuters
Stephanie Simon
DENVER | Tue Mar 13, 2012

Bishops consider broader focus in birth-control fight

(Reuters) - Facing small but clear signs of discontent within their own ranks,
U.S. Catholic bishops may be poised to rethink their aggressive tactics
for fighting a federal mandate that health insurance plans cover contraception,
according to sources close to influential bishops.

There are no indications that the bishops will drop their fight against the federal mandate.
But dozens of bishops, meeting this week in Washington, are likely to discuss concerns
that their battle against the Obama administration over birth control risks being viewed
by the public as narrow and partisan and thus diminishes the
church's moral authority, the sources said.<snip>

One sign of a coming recalibration: A sweeping statement on religious liberty, now circulating
in draft form, that aims to broaden the bishops' focus far beyond the contraception mandate.
The draft statement, slated to be released soon to a burst of publicity,
condemns an array of local, state and federal policies as violations of religious freedom,
said Martin Nussbaum, a private attorney who has consulted with the bishops.<snip>

Polls have shown that a majority of Americans, including most Catholics,
support President Barack Obama's policy of requiring health insurance plans
to offer free contraception, including sterilization and the morning-after pill.
<snip>
There are some indications that the bishops would come to negotiations
with more flexibility. Earlier, they called for rescinding the birth-control rule altogether
and for allowing even secular employers to opt out if they had a moral objection.

The Obama administration, however, has made clear
it's not interested in negotiating changes to the policy.
Instead, an administration official said the White House would value input
from the bishops on practical questions such as how to accommodate Catholic institutions
that provide their own insurance and don't want to pay for birth control.
But such accommodations would not change the bottom line:
"Women will still have access to preventive care that includes contraceptive services,"
the official said, "no matter where they work."

[Lamplighter]

The Republicans are right, we don't want any more "activist Judges appointed to the US Supreme Court.

Tell you kids they better return those overdue books to the library.



NY Times
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: April 2, 2012

Supreme Court Ruling Allows Strip-Searches for Any Arrest

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled by a 5-to-4
vote that officials may strip-search people arrested for any offense, however minor,
before admitting them to jails even if the officials have no reason to suspect the presence of contraband.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, joined by the court’s conservative wing,
wrote that courts are in no position to second-guess the judgments of correctional officials
who must consider not only the possibility of smuggled weapons and drugs,
but also public health and information about gang affiliations.<snip>

.
If it's not the Judiciary who can control the judgments of correctional officials, who is ?
.