U.S. Courts Lack Jurisdiction, Violates Constitutionally Reserved Rights!

Yes the first amendment bars Religion from the jurisdiction of the both the frnchise government and their courts yet the supreme court and judiciary continue to stomp peoples rights without constitutional authorization to do so.

The US court system was created to handle contract obligations of and under the constitution not above and outside the constitution, the franchise agreement, wherein these boundaries are expressly defined.

The first amendment expressly forbids 'BOTH' the establishment of religion, [with or without title] or the infringing upon the right of one to 'exercize' their religion.

These rights that the people have expressly reserved prior to any agreement to be governed stand above the codified administrative law not under.

The United States commercial franchise courts have no jurisdiction to judge what is or is not religious, only the contract for which they have been authorized.

The government has failed to create a system that ensures these express rights are protected therefore are in breach of contract.

Not only is the government negligent in its duty to 'protect' the reserved rights of people, severaly and individually, it has defined and designed itself such that the rights of the people are being abolished slice by slice in favor of the new religion, theirs.



First the court would claim that people have to give up their religion to work for the government.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-473.ZS.html

Nothing in the constitution 'authorizes' this, and to claim it does is constructive fraud.


Now the courts claim people do not have the right to exercise THEIR personal religion despite its 'reservation' as the supreme law, and the courts demand people must submit to legislated administrative law that none of the same people had the opportunity to vote upon in the first place, thus fining, penalizing people, and destroying their lives in support of the new government secular designed religion.

Case in point people who in defense of THEIR religion to prevent themselves from becoming an 'ACCESSORY TO THE COMMISSION OF SIN' in the course of exercising THEIR religious rights run head to head with the United States Commercial Bible, codified.

Christian bakers fined $135,000 for refusing to make wedding cake for lesbians.

The owners of a mom and pop bakery have just learned there is a significant price to pay for following their religious beliefs.

Aaron and Melissa Klein, the owners of Sweet Cakes By Melissa, have been ordered to pay $135,000 in damages to a lesbian couple after they refused to bake them a wedding cake in 2013.

he Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industry (BOLI) awarded $60,000 to Laurel Bowman-Cryer and $75,000 in damages to Rachel Bowman-Cryer for “emotional suffering.”

“This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage,” the final order read. “It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.”

BUT the case IS about religion, the cake bakers right to protect and exercise THEIR religion outside the ever growing encroachment of the administrative US bible, not only has the government hijacked the peoples right to support themselves as they see fit by licensing and other extortion it now demands people to give up THEIR religion to support themselves and feed their children.

The courts Stomped upon the Bakers EXPRESS RIGHT to exercise their religion while deciding in favor of the gays right to exercise their religion and all under a commercial venue.


Now the davis case rather than respecting her religion by providing necessary procedural accommodations they threw her in jail for her refusal to forced by government to commit the religious CRIME of: ACCESSORY TO THE COMMISSION OF A SIN in violation of the laws of HER religion.


The above proves that the US Judiciary continues to operate outside the 'express authorization' set forth in the constitution, religion being the no go zone, by continually making religious determinations, rather than recusing themselves, and not surprisingly in every case the decisions always fall on the side of commerce, where where they do have jurisdiction, meantime forcing citizens to relinquish their EXPRESS RESERVED right to exercise their religion if they desire to live in the US.

Now I am sure there are plenty of people who will come forward to defend the status quo, please do so with citations that demonstrate a clear constitutional authorization of the courts to enter the religious realm without the use of constructive fraud.

Disclaimer I dont give squat who or what wants to marry who or what, this is about law.

Apparently posting this in the polical beliefs section didnt have anyone who knew enough about law to comment, so lets try it again here.

 

Obviously Supreme Court Judges that know far more than you about Law or The Constitution disagree with you, sooooooo, You Lose. Enjoy

 

The problem is that you want to broaden what is the 'religious relm' far beyond what I perceive as its scope. I think there is a Christian way to pray, to get baptized, to proselytize, to get buried, to attend worship and yes a Christian way to get (religiously) married. I don't think there is a Christian way to bake and decorate a cake, do floral arrangements, or sign licenses. In short you want theists to define what 'religious exercise' means, as broadly as they feel inclined, so that they feel no possible discomfort or conflict in their interactions with secular law. I don't see the first amendment as protecting a theists 'right' to ignore bone fide secular law, assuming that the law is not designed to directly target people of faith or people of a specific faith. It is the difference between putting the priest who refuses a sacrament( an exercise of religion) to a gay couple in jail , and an employee who refuses to sign a license ( not an exercise of religion).

I have no greater duty to provide 'citations' for my narrower view of the exercise clause, than you do of your broad interpretation of the exercise clause. Its all about what 'exercise' includes and what it does not include.

Your problem is that you haven't figured out any boundaries for this humongous loophole you have blown all through state, municipal and federal legal codes if someone decides 'god' tells them the government is wrong. No one is going to take you seriously until you contain the size or scope of this 'religious exemption' you are claiming. Its not just about gays and weddings that will be targeted.

 

Not at all. Nothing you mentioned is the core of what is meant by a religious action. I just did a quick scan of what you wrote but religious actions are actions based on personal moral decisions not rituals and worship methods, though I suppose it might be possible to include them in some circumstances.

Even atheists exercise their religion. Its one of those things that is like "I think therefore I am".

You may want to review Hume and Kant on the discourse of pure reason and compare to the later discourse on religion.


.

 

So then you believe the cake bakers had no right to exercise their religion but the gays did have a right to exercise their religion in your opinion and no one else is entitled to judge matters but the supreme court.

 

Not interested in the philosophical or theological implications. I am interested in the legal implications. its hard to prove that the reason someone broke or ignored the law does not have a 'personal moral element'. You just made the loophole in law enforcement virtually universal. No jurist is going to entertain a universal excuse or exemption from legislative reach or judicial oversight because you cannot envision any boundaries to the term 'exercise'.

 

then you arent interested in using what the courts follow as their guide since especialy philosophy plays a crucial role in the supposed 'right' reasoning of the courts.

Yep and therein is the Achilles heel. Only commercial judges to make religious determinations that we all are expected to accept as bonafide and live under as law.

When court hijacks morals, hence make a moral determination, and that determination becomes the 'law of the land', the courts and resulting legislation establishes a religion in substance, title/name notwithstanding.

The elements and merits of the substance is what it is.

I have not suggested a universal rule or excuse for anyone to be completely outside of legislative reach with the exception to 'reserved rights' with respect to religion which is outside of the present day commercial;y based governments legislative reach.

'Reserved rights' either exist or are a fantasy.

'Reserved rights' with respect to religion is a no trespass sign in which case it is in fact outside of secular legislation.

Most decisions a person makes are not moral actually, but many that a person makes are being infringed upon by runaway politically motivated fiat.

That said if we reserved those rights who gave the present day courts the authority to make religious based rulings?

 

You are absolutely right. I do not want judges to consult the Great Books of the Western World for guidance. I don't care if they get a doctorate in philosophy or ever take a class. Once again, its about the definition and boundaries of what constitutes the exercise of religion, and I don't think anyone ever intended to examine the mindset of a theist or purported theist to determine whether they were 'living their faith' when they decided which laws to obey or not. Nor do I think anyone intended jurists to ejudicate whether there is or is not sufficient theological evidence behind a specific assertion of this 'exemption'. The reserved right still exists, even if it does not include who you prepare a floral arrangement for as an employee or who's marriage license you sign your professional name to. There is no constitutional right not to feel conflicted or uncomfortable in your any of professional engagements or private conduct secondary to statutory duties to obey laws. There is a right to pursue, promote and participate in the religious observation, education and activities unencumbered by government targeting.

I am sorry if folks feel laws make them do things they don't feel are 'moral'. Just not sorry to let them all dance away free of statutory constraint.

 

Is that not the purpose in any contract?

If its a mutually agreed upon contract how can it be claimed to be an 'excuse' if it is outside of legislative purview?

Is not the reservation of a right for the sole purpose to insure it is out of the other parties [in this case the gubbermints] reach?

This would suggest the gubbermint is in breach of contract and breach of trust and willfully negligent of the duties they are sworn to uphold.

 

Nope, please stop restating my position 180 degrees to agree with yours since I clearly do not agree with you.

To live in ones 'faith' merely suggests that they followed through in action with their moral decision to fulfill the elements of a bonafide religion.

The elements of religion are broadly a matter of conscience that serves ones interests. That said you do not need to be pigeon holed as any 'specific' or 'singlular' kind of 'ist' to qualify since atheists make moral decisions every day of their lives same as christians, jews, muslims, krishna, buddah whatever.

I suppose you may have a point, that in ancient times, it was easier when they burned anyone who disagreed with their flavor of religion and there was somewhat one religion where people pretty much understood things on relatively the same terms.

However genocide is not the solution, and certainly conducting religious trials in a secular commercial court resulting in religion of gubbermint which is solely in the hands of a few gubmint appointed judges is not a legitimate solution either. Is it?

If yes Why/Where and how did they obtain this authority?

So then you believe gubblmint synthetic religion labeled law, created outside the authority expressly granted to it trumps and has a higher standing than the original contract?

which again brings us full circle to: Why/Where and how did they obtain this authority to rule in the no trespass zone?

 

you don't get to turn the entire globe is turned into one big no trepass zone, by this notion of 'conscientious objection' to all legal authority. You'll just have to suck it up and make some hard decisions on how much your moral angst is worth to you. If your faith based conscience is worth much, you'll stop whining, plead guilty and shut up. Otherwise I'm not likely to take your faith based moral stance as worth much more than any my dog ate my homework excuse to break the law and flout the conseqences.

 

and you do not get to throw everything and anything under the commercial bulldozer.

especially if you need to resort to mischaracterizing my position with:

which I never said nor implied.

What are you talking about? I will happily plead guilty to possessing a brain that fires on all 8, and proclaiming I should shut up is not an argument but your recussal from a reason based debate or discussion.

Thats your choice, though it neither answers or rebuts the proposition/question.

Why/Where and how did they obtain this authority, (as described in the OP and following posts)?

 

The bigger issue here seems to be one of imposing grossly excessive fines. $75,000 or $135,000 can put a small bakery out of business, or even lead to someone losing their home, in some cases.
It's just ridiculous the amount of money some of these courts award people. Absolutely outrageous.

 

Wow lots of questions and assumptions wrapped up in one sentence. If the laws where the business operates say one cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation then their religious right to discriminate is not valid and it can lead to fines, if the opposite is true then they can do as they feel. Gays have always had the same rights to their religious beliefs just like any other person. when it comes to the Law the Supreme Court Is the last word, that is how our system is set up, don't like it find a place that operates under different rules.

 

While that is in fact HUGE, and I agree, the courts refuse to recognize constitutional authority of the christian defendants course of action ignoring bonafide well established religious law that the bakers have chosen to follow as their religion forcing them to be an accessory to the commission of a sin against their religion by judicial/gubblmint fiat.

This sort of thing is precisely what this country was designed not to allow to happen, but it has and continues to happen.

 

but england didnt not do a much better job then here.


There is some controversy over whether the original fixed court was the Common Pleas or King's Bench. In 1178, a chronicler recorded that when Henry II:

learned that the land and the men of the land were burdened by so great a number of justices, for there were, eighteen, chose with the counsel of the wise men of his Kingdom five only, two clerks three and laymen, all of his private family, and decreed that these five should hear all complaints of the Kingdom and should do right and should not depart from the king's court but should remain there to hear the complaints of men, with this understanding that, if there should come up among them any question which could not be brought to a conclusion by them, it should be presented to a royal hearing and be determined by the king and the wiser men of the kingdom".[SUP][8][/SUP]





do you see anything familiar"

'the king and his wise men' of course means the last word and therefore final

If not "We the People" then, [pre-revolution] then how can it be "We the People" now?

and once again get the (*)(*)(*)(*) out is neither viable or a reasonable argument and rebuts nothing, sorry.
​

 

Thomas Jefferson knew more about the Constitution than Supreme Court judges ruling for more and more power for themselves.

At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account." - See more at: http://www.politicalruminations.com...le-of-the-judiciary.html#sthash.ubfxpELi.dpuf

"Judges" and "Justices" should instead be called "Tyrants" and "Lords." We the people should be renamed we the peasants.

- - - Updated - - -

This was administrative law. So the "prosecutor" and the "judge" were the same. Administrative law was created as another means to declare circumventing the Bill of Rights and denying constitutional due process rights is legitimate.

It used to not be legal to obtain emotional harm money unless there was a physical injury with pain and suffering. But the lawyer's trade union - which judges are members of - realized there isn't money for THEM in that.

 

Sexual orientation? So....IF a sadist/masochist want depictions of sadism/torture on their wedding cake...They can SUE someone for not wanting to make their cake?

 

Imagine if a Christian-owned medical supply company refused to sell medical equipment to an Abortion clinic.
Or if the terrible institution of slavery was brought back and a handcuff manufacturer refused to sell manacles and chains to a slave plantation.

 

This is not a private matter if you run a public business, if your a church or mosque or temple or any other holy place, the government cannot interfere unless you let them say take government grant money they can then tie the money to their rules for said grant. You as an individual or religious person can believe anything you wish as long as no one is hurt or laws broken if secular in nature. But you run a public business a bakery or similar you generally have to abide by anti-discrimination laws of the jurisdiction your in or face penalties under said government level a city ordinance, county ordinance or state law and if Federal then Federal Law if applicable.

State Law bans discrimination in the case of the baker so they have to abide by the law if a public business, that's simple.

 

If its not all legal authority, start narrowing the scope of this conscientious objector exemption. Which laws may government demand compliance and punish non-compliance regardless of your widdle wounded moral scruples and or biblical objections?

 

Federal judges and even state judges have self-annointed themselves with endless outrageously unconstitutional powers - the worst example of the fox guarding the hen house. As extreme as outright declaring they may instantly imprison anyone they want to with no indictment, no bond, no trial and no jury for as long as they want to anyone - no proof of anything required - and essentially to the rest of the person's life.

They are vastly worst - as is government in general - than what people fought and died for in the American revolution. And it will only continue to worsen.
People have been trained that all must submit to government and even to clamor for endlessly more people in prison and declared criminals - literally millions and millions - and never enough peasants imprisoned for reason or just on each tryant's whims. Judges have become tyranical lords. Due process has been replaced by no due process administrative law. Legal rights must be purchased from the for-profit lawyer's monopolistic trade union - of which both judges and politicians are in and profit from.

While it is often declared as a platitude that the American judicial system is the best devised so far by humans, this is false. The only restraint on the American justice system is that it can not openly order someone summarily executed or openly ordered to be tortured, other than the worst of all tortures - solitary confinement. Otherwise the judicial system and those of it can take anything anyone has, order anyone to do or not do anything on the whim, prejudice or psychological instability of any judge, and imprison anyone on mere civil matters as long as they want to totally denying any due process rights falsely taught as guaranteed under the Bill Of Rights.

Of course, within limits, we are allowed to complain about it on the Internet anonymously. However, if discovered, a SWAT team might raid your home as a terrorist suspect. And if you are gunned down during this? Likely it will be blamed on you as to why.

However, even complaining at all may soon end. A precedent has been set that a person may be imprisoned for refusing to swear under oath that the Judge is greater than God. That is how far the American judicial system has become absolute tyrants of unlimited self declared power.

The Constitution, unfortunately, contains no provisions as to any remedy to judges who declare any part the Constitution and Bill Of Rights null and void - and to instead do and order the exact opposite using prisons as their enforcement.

 

You are almost square on with your analogy. I say almost because the courts are not the soul source of the usurpation, the people so victimized are just as guilty. I was hoping that Kim Davis was a breath of fresh air but alas not so, she has hired an attorney and will suffer the consequences. But you want cites, use the actual opinions themselves as the dissenting mystical beings in black robes have provided the ammo. With your disclaimer you're going to love Scalia's dissent.

All four of the dissenting supreme mystical beings in black robes have said the same thing, a runaway court composed of four liberals appointed by either Slick Willie or Odumbo and a runaway idiot appointed by Reagan. There are but two that for the most part are constitutionally oriented, Thomas and Scalia with Alito sometimes on the side of the constitution. And then there is Roberts that can never make up his mind and a lot of the time comes down on the side of the violators.

 

Seems they don't but love the way you seem to say so little with soooo many words.

 

But what does your perception of religion have to do with anything, it is your perception, nothing more, nothing less. And there is no "christian" way but numerous ways bound by the traditions of that religion. But marriage is another matter. The sanctity of marriage means many things to many people but all with one huge principle exist among them, between man and woman for procreation and survival of the species. But to the truly religious, marriage goes beyond the union to extend to that stage of holy matrimony, the blessing by their religious beliefs and to be joined in the eyes of their god.

But that isn't the real contention that is being applied, that is only the usurpation of the sanctity by redefining a sacred word. However, the major issue is about rights and that is where the courts have gone beyond their bounds to prescribe law from the bench in direct violation of their oaths and in total violation of rights.

Now in the matter of the courts in these ridicilous opinions with resultant pentalties, there is the maxim of law that is totally ignored:

In the context of the court, this means that one's rights can never be trumped by another's claim of rights. They have a right to be prejudiced, not just by a religious conviction but just because they want to. But to stand on moral grounds is an even higher conviction. To deny profits based on morals means no higher grounds in my book.

For a court to place another's desires above the rights of another is in direct violation of any aspect of a republican form of government. A right is only valid up to the point of violating another's rights, then it becomes a wrong or malum in se by law. The courts are in a runaway mode condoning malum in se in violation of another's rights.

As to defining religious rights, they are anything they want them to be with the only limit they can't violate anothers rights. But your contention, a mistaken contention, is that one may exert their rights by violating the rights of another, well one has rights the other is plain wrong. So to refute your claim of "exercise" clause to a narrower sense applies only to you and no other without their consent. Others may choose to have a much broader sense of what they chose to exercise and that is their right and not yours to define for them.

Really, well the OPs boundaries on that loophole as you have labeled it, are much narrower than mine. I don't consent so none of their trivial crap applies to me. Statutes are for those that accept the benefit. Opinions of courts are just that, opinions which are of no more consequence than the ones expressed here and no doubt I object to the large majority of those expressed here.

I am of the Marc Stevens school but his implementation is at times delusional. If people only understood what he says and were to implement it in a timely manner, this fraud of a legal system would be a thing in the past. I love going to court, they hate seeing me. I have a prosecutor that is so close to a USC Title 18, section 241/242 suit it is starting to get thrilling. Those sections carry penalties of fines and anywhere from one year up to life in prison or in case of death, the death penalty.

Oh, I love the law, now if only the sheeple would stop being sheered.