Are you really stating a law, in opposition to a SCOTUS Decision, IE: Roe v Wade (Woman's right to abortion) overturns the Decision? And is the 'Law of The Land' for the years before it get to SCOTUS?

That argument wouldn't a pass a third grade civics class.

I assume it depends on what the ruling was based on. Take the courts calling the FCC mandate of net neutrality illegal. The reason it was illegal is because the FCC doesn't consider ISPs common carriers. If the FCC declares ISPs common carriers they can again mandate net neutrality.

---

Are you really stating a law, in opposition to a SCOTUS Decision, IE: Roe v Wade (Woman's right to abortion) overturns the Decision? And is the 'Law of The Land' for the years before it get to SCOTUS?

That argument wouldn't a pass a third grade civics class.

while you are right to the extent that congress can not just reissue the same law,
=========================================================
congress can and does evolve the law to render SCOTUS OBSOLETE, then the law has been changed in such a way that the SCOTUS ruling can no longer happen so it is not overturned it has been made meaningless because what ever happened to cause SCOTUS to rule in the first place can no longer happen.

---

Are you really stating a law, in opposition to a SCOTUS Decision, IE: Roe v Wade (Woman's right to abortion) overturns the Decision? And is the 'Law of The Land' for the years before it get to SCOTUS?

That argument wouldn't a pass a third grade civics class.

But thats the thing. Roe vs Wade said that women cannot be denied access to abortion by the government under the some clause in the 14th amendment. Abortion literally became a constitutional right after Roe vs Wade. In order to change it, Congress would have to add a new constitutional amendment that changes the 14th amendment in such a way that it overturns Roe vs Wade.

But the Hobby Lobby decision was not based on any of the constitutional amendments. RFRA is not part of the US constitution, therefor it is much easier for Congress to change the law to make the SCOTUS decision obsolete. It is after all within congresses right to make laws, amend existing laws, repeal laws. And when it makes laws it is allowed to close legal loopholes and make it explicitly clear that a law cannot be used or read in a certain way.

Why does that matter? Because reading the law is how the SCOTUS reaches its decisions. It is the final arbiter in cases where the law is unclear, and it gets to interpret the relevant laws and then state that from that point onward, a law should be read in a certain way and that by reading it in a certain way, this or that becomes legal or illegal. And as long as that does not directly refer to the constitution itself, but other federal laws it means congress can change the way the law is read by making it explicitly clear that it has to be read in their way and not the way SCOTUS initially read it. Of course, people can take that new law to court and see if SCOTUS overturns the new law because it is in violation of the constitution or some other law, but that does not change the fact that congress can make new laws that make SCOTUS decisions obsolete.

In the past: Federal Courts have taken Laws very seriously, Regulations less so.

The FCC's power to regulate is based on law so the courts ruling on the regulation is based on law. Granted that law was not written in the constitution so it can be changed.

No one here is a constitutional scholars so we all assume. I do know that this issue isn't about denying anybody anything, it is about forcing someone to do something they think will get them cast into hell. This isn't about freedom, it about control freaks forcing their agenda on others. Isn't that why we threw them out in 1776? Fortunately they are a small and insignificant cabal that pales in the face of what's important to American's, dancing cat videos.

---

All Laws are governed by Constitutional Interpretation (SCOTUS).

That's for sure. The Constitution explicitly gives US the right to trial by a jury of our peers but the SCOTUS have ruled that only applies if one can be sent to jail for more than six months.

At one time under the same constitution slaves were ruled to be property; the constitution says whatever the SCOTUS say, well what 5 of them say it says.

---

The SCOTUS Decision was BASED on The Constitution.

It does get tiring debating a Constitutional Issue, with some who has no real knowledge of the issue (but thinks he does).

How? Again, they based this on a Federal law, NOT the first amendment.

All Laws, Federal and State, must not violate The Constitution. Which includes ALL Amendments.

But how is that relevant to the Hobby Lobby case? They weren't arguing that some law was violating their constitutional rights or that it was incompatible with the constitution. Nor did the SCOTUS say that if Hobby Lobby did not get its exemption it would be unconstitutional for some reason.

The SCOTUS Decision stated it violated one of the provisions of The Constitution.

Sometimes you have to hit people over the head with a 10 foot lead clue by 4. Other times a source document works.
http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Burwell_v_Hobby_Lobby_Stores_Inc_No_13354_and_13356_US_June_30_20

---

The First Ten Amendments to The US Constitution, are commonly referred to as The Bill of Rights.

Back when the Bill of Rights was written they didn't hold it as sacred as we do today. There were 14 copies hand written, one for each state and one for the federal government. Many have now been lost. One, I think Maryland's, was found on the back of a picture frame. It was that copy that went on tour. We we were let in to a room in groups of 10 and stood around a steel cylinder with a bullet proof glass top. As the lights dimmed a blue light lit in the cylinder and the document rose up from its vault with great pomp and ceremony. It paused for about 30 seconds and then descended.

This tour was sponsored by tobacco companies when they were fighting laws against indoor smoking.

---

In the past: Federal Courts have taken Laws very seriously, Regulations less so.

The FCC's power to regulate is based on law so the courts ruling on the regulation is based on law. Granted that law was not written in the constitution so it can be changed.

No one here is a constitutional scholars so we all assume. I do know that this issue isn't about denying anybody anything, it is about forcing someone to do something they think will get them cast into hell. This isn't about freedom, it about control freaks forcing their agenda on others. Isn't that why we threw them out in 1776? Fortunately they are a small and insignificant cabal that pales in the face of what's important to American's, dancing cat videos.

==============================================================
Yes my dancing cat videos are important,but to the point of what you are saying,
while the Greens should not be forced, neither should their employees with opposing beliefs, so constitutionally all that can be done is stop discrimination along religious lines federally,because congress shall pass no law in regards too
formation of a religion or the practice of religion.

---

All Laws, Federal and State, must not violate The Constitution. Which includes ALL Amendments.

But how is that relevant to the Hobby Lobby case? They weren't arguing that some law was violating their constitutional rights or that it was incompatible with the constitution. Nor did the SCOTUS say that if Hobby Lobby did not get its exemption it would be unconstitutional for some reason.

Yes!!! They WERE arguing The Law violated a provision of The US Constitution. The First Amendment being one.

The First Ten Amendments to The US Constitution, are commonly referred to as The Bill of Rights. But ALL parts of The Constitution must be adhered to. Like the Term Limits of a President.

The SCOTUS Decision stated it violated one of the provisions of The Constitution.

Why were the "term limits" not put in place when the Constitution was first written. The term limits for the President were not put in place until 1951.

And why are there not "term limits" for the other politicians, etc. that go to Washington, like the Vice President, the Senate, the house and SCOTUS.

Why were the "term limits" not put in place when the Constitution was first written. The term limits for the President were not put in place until 1951.

The founders wanted Washington to be a King. He declined but was elected POTS unanimously twice; he had no party affiliation. Who would dare run against the father of our country?

The electorate back then was smart enough to make up their own mind too.

---

Seems strange, to me, that the foundling fathers didn't ensure limits on terms, most of them were classically educated and would therefore would have understood the problems of letting people serve in high positions too long, they nearly all become megalomaniacs.

Seems strange, to me, that the foundling fathers didn't ensure limits on terms, most of them were classically educated and would therefore would have understood the problems of letting people serve in high positions too long, they nearly all become megalomaniacs.

I don't think they could foresee Citizens United. I think they assumed that the people would be aware, informed and care who is elected, and we are now zero for three.

---

Seems strange, to me, that the foundling fathers didn't ensure limits on terms, most of them were classically educated and would therefore would have understood the problems of letting people serve in high positions too long, they nearly all become megalomaniacs.

I don't think they could foresee Citizens United. I think they assumed that the people would be aware, informed and care who is elected, and we are now zero for three.

As yes let's fondly look back on who had suffrage back then.

---

The SCOTUS Decision stated it violated one of the provisions of The Constitution.

Sometimes you have to hit people over the head with a 10 foot lead clue by 4. Other times a source document works.
http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Burwell_v_Hobby_Lobby_Stores_Inc_No_13354_and_13356_US_June_30_20

+1 Thank you

See Clyde, nowhere does the SCOTUS state that Hobby Lobbies constitutional rights are violated by being mandated to pay for contraceptives. It only talks about the RFRA, which is not a constitutional amendment and therefor congress can easily make a law that alters the working of the RFRA.

Sometimes you have to hit people over the head with a 10 foot lead clue by 4.

See Clyde, nowhere does the SCOTUS state that Hobby Lobbies constitutional rights are violated by being mandated to pay for contraceptives. It only talks about the RFRA, which is not a constitutional amendment and therefor congress can easily make a law that alters the working of the RFRA.

The SCOUTS ruling has nothing to do with contraceptives, it has everything to do with forcing someone to pay to kill babies. I too can play the B.S. game.

You people keep pushing to force others to do your bidding and it could get ugly. Look at the US southern boarder. Anyway this has nothing to do with you. We in the US don't care that you put women, who are for rent, on display in windows.

---

You people keep pushing to force others to do your bidding and it could get ugly. Look at the US southern boarder. Anyway this has nothing to do with you. We in the US don't care that you put women, who are for rent, on display in windows.

Better behind a window where its warm and dry than on a street corner.

Sometimes you have to hit people over the head with a 10 foot lead clue by 4.

See Clyde, nowhere does the SCOTUS state that Hobby Lobbies constitutional rights are violated by being mandated to pay for contraceptives. It only talks about the RFRA, which is not a constitutional amendment and therefor congress can easily make a law that alters the working of the RFRA.

The SCOUTS ruling has nothing to do with contraceptives, it has everything to do with forcing someone to pay to kill babies. I too can play the B.S. game.

You people keep pushing to force others to do your bidding and it could get ugly. Look at the US southern boarder. Anyway this has nothing to do with you. We in the US don't care that you put women, who are for rent, on display in windows.

======================================================================
none of the b list causes abortion. They either prevent fertilization or implantation neither of which are considered to be an abortion.

---

none of the b list causes abortion. They either prevent fertilization or implantation neither of which are considered to be an abortion.

That is a mute point, the SCOTUS said they are abortifacients and that's whose opinion counts. You and I saying yes, no, yes, no means nothing.

---