Men in Black

[paft.livejournal.com]

Here is a picture from today's House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing about the Obama administration's birth control mandate:



The first row are the allowed witnesses.

All those people a couple rows behind them? Well... those witnesses just don't fit in.

That's why most of the Democratic women on the committee walked out of the room.

Just now, Oklahoma GOP representative Jim Lankford implied that these men in black were being "berated" by the committee. In fact, they've mostly been getting strokes just short of full-body massages from most of the remaining committee members. This hearing is such a transparent and over-the-top, right wing extremist attack on the administration (one Representative invoked those dastardly laws against smoking in public buildings as a sign of the slippery slope the administration has set up) that clips from it should be used by Democrats in the upcoming election.

I cannot imagine any reasonable and honest person watching this hearing and not being appalled.


Partially crossposted from Thoughtcrimes

*

Comments

[ofbg.livejournal.com]

Did you check on the constitutional expertese of the committee members? I tried, failed after googleing this,"list of Committee members of house oversight committee".

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

They were called as religious experts, not constitutional scholars.

[ofbg.livejournal.com]

Ok, I'm a Constitutional scholar. They should have called me.

The establishment clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Congress made a law establishing HHS. It was perfectly constitutional by contemporary standards because it did not address establishments of religion. (although the words of the Constitution say differently but that's a whole different debate).

Obama wrote regulations applying the HSS law to establishments of religion, clearly in violation of the establishment clause. Obama, a smart lawyer, knew or should have known. I vote for knew because he just wanted to create an exploitable issue to turn the women folk against the conservative side.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Your personal view as a so-called constitutional scholar is not being debated here. Are you able to concede that the congressional hearing that was held was not done on constitutional grounds (as shown via who was there) but on religious grounds?

Since that's really the heart here. You can view it however you like, and who knows, maybe you got something there, but that's not the point HERE. The point HERE is that the congressional meeting was NOT about constitutionality, but instead, was about abortion and the church.

[ofbg.livejournal.com]

No, the hearing was about presidental power and whether he over-stepped his authority and nothing else. The dems tried to make it about abortion abd 'women's rights', which is what the media focused on.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

http://oversight.house.gov/images/stories/Testimony/2-16-12_Full_HC_Mandate_BishopLori.pdf

I don't believe you.
Care to counter-cite? Or will you simply deny?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

definitely, definitely, not a constitutional scholar, to say the least

[ofbg.livejournal.com]

From the link below: "Issa, Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, convened a hearing entitled ; Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?"

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/299915/20120216/obama-birth-control-contraception-mandate-obamacare.htm

"Your personal view as a so-called constitutional scholar is not being debated here"

Agreed, my arguement comes from the words of the 1st Amendment as below.

http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1351189.html?thread=107611669#t107611669

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

"This was an unexpected gift," Ralph Reed, chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition and a Republican strategist, told the Times.
....
"Religious people determine what violates their consciences, not the federal government," Rev. Dr. Matthew C. Harrison, president of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, said during the hearing.


They can frame it as: "Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?"

but the fact is, they didn't have any legal scholars there to talk about what the obama administration, legally, can do. they had a bunch of religious leaders there. can you cite me any legal scholars who were there and spoke on legal matters? So far, I've only found religious leaders as speakers there.

but go ahead, correct me.


as for the 1st amendment, repeating it isn't an argument. the words alone do not present your case for you. if i cannot smoke pot as part of my religion, it's obvious that the first amendment does not protect all religious action. legal scholars debate what is and what is not covered. hence, legal scholars should have been presenting that evidence to the committee on Oversight and Government Reform, not a bunch of religious leaders testifying as to what their religious views tell them

[ofbg.livejournal.com]

"They can frame it as: "Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?"

They can and they should.

"as for the 1st amendment, repeating it isn't an argument. the words alone do not present your case for you"

The words mean something. If you can't refute -how- the words make my case in any manner except saying "the words alone do not present your case for you", you fail to make your case.

Please tell me how the 1st amendment is not relevent.

"if i cannot smoke pot as part of my religion"

What religion is that? Which Holy book do worship from? If you just smoke pot religiously, maybe it's because you can't help yourself. I so, there are programs-----

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Discordianism.
Holy book: principia discordia

And again, even if you refuse to accept this religion, I'd hope you'd accept Mormonism and polygamy as another example.

The fact that I have offered examples of the words of the first amendment being insufficient to cover all religious activity, it is quite obvious that some religious activity isn't protected. Ergo, you must state why this is protected


And got anything for the lack of legal scholars at the hearing?

[ofbg.livejournal.com]

Ok, you worship Eris, The Goddess of Chaos and Confusion. Explains a lot!

As for polygamy, even the Mormon church gave that up in 1890 because it was never a religious principle and never allowed by the Mormon Bible.

From the Book of Mormon , "(Jacob chapter 2): “Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none."

Anyone who can read and understand the simple words of the 1st amendment is sufficiently scholarly to understand that the Obama contraception mandate violates those words.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

"Anyone who can read and understand the simple words of the 1st amendment is sufficiently scholarly to understand that the Obama contraception mandate violates those words."

Nonsense.
That's simply denying the need or value of experts in constitutional law.

[ofbg.livejournal.com]

Cretainly the need in this question!

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

I was wondering, how come a constitutional scholar does all these typos? Eeeh? ;)

[ofbg.livejournal.com]

Certainly I don't know. Please point out all the others so I can feel admonished.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

One is more than enough if you ask me! :)

I hope you proof-read your scholarly works, though.

[ofbg.livejournal.com]

By the way, I can't find 'Eeeh' in the dictionary. Is it another language?

[ofbg.livejournal.com]

I'm old and slow. I just noticed you didn't rebut the truth I stated about the Mormons.

You agree?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

You haven't responded to my claims of Discordianism and how my first amendment rights are trampled when I am denied the ability to take LSD and pot, which, as a Discordian, I am want to do as part of my religious worship.

Gimme a response to that, and I'll consider responding to your response to the mormon issue.

[ofbg.livejournal.com]

I can understand why, when worshiping The Goddess of Chaos and Confusion, which was created by writing a book in the 1960's, by a member of the drug culture, to exalt, glorify and justify the drug culture, is not considered a religion.

If I were to write a book that started a new religion that required a human sacrifice in the form of putting a wife, daughter or volunteer on the dinner table every Thanksgiving as the main course to please the god of turkeys, I believe I could understand why the 1st amendment may not consider it a valid religion.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Oh hold on a second.
Human sacrifice and ritual drug consumption are NOT the same.

And what makes religion about chaos and confusion any more or less religious than that about a man who raised the dead or walked on water?

Kooky religions are all kooky. Is Fred Phelps really more protected than I am, just cause his God shares a name with your God?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Not to mention, you need to brush up on your constitutional law. The 1st amendment does not protect my Discordian religious rituals where I smoke pot and take LSD, so, it's not quite like the 1st amendment ACTUALLY prohibits the govt from impinging on freedom of religion.

Or, as another example if you (mistakenly) think Discordianism is not a religion, then Mormons and polygamy.

The 1st amendment is NOT a blanket protection for religious activities.

[ofbg.livejournal.com]

Is Discordian the name of your church? If so, was it created to protect the also created rituals involving pot and LSD? I'm curious because the dictionary definition of Definition of DISCORDIA CONCORS: harmonious discord : harmony or unity gained by combining disparate or conflicting elements.

The Webster defaulted to DISCORDIA CONCORS when I put in Discordian. The name of your church doesn't stand alone.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Discordianism doesn't need to be in Websters to exist.

If your google-fu cannot turn up anything on Discordianism, I recommend you get a teenager to help you with your googling.