In Washington, D.C., the shutdown has paralyzed parts of the government. Meanwhile, business and life goes on for commercial enterprises, including the making and selling of Beer.
But (insert ominous music here) the government is closed and cannot be bothered to regulate the commercial free speech that it has decreed is required in order for the Beer Brewers to label and sell their product.
So… if the government is required to approve speech, is it really free speech?
When I raised my hand and swore my oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, there was something that I did not do. and I assure you that if I am ever elected to public office or appointed to a public trust, I will do the same thing I didn’t do before again.
Because that is what “no religious tests” means.
Back in 1960, the State of Maryland, which has a long history of religious tolerance, found itself the defendant in a lawsuit against its requirement that a public officer confesses a belief in G-d and eternal judgment. From its founding in 1634, Maryland had always prided itself on tolerating religious beliefs across the spectrum.
The problem is, that tolerating religious beliefs didn’t leave much room for those who weren’t of the same or at least similar Christian beliefs…
This often happens to me. I start down a thought road, planning to talk about one thing, and then I get off on a different road. As Sherlock Holmes described it, I follow the thread where it leads. I had planned to talk about this weeks refusal by the Supreme Court to issue a writ of cert to hear Gee v Planned Parenthood, but I got interested in Justice Thomas’ dissent.
Understandably, he is upset at the refusal of the Court to hear the case. There are those who believe that his dissent is rooted in ideology, and it may be. Clearly, he hates abortion and would vote to overturn Roe v Wade faster than a Michael Cohen news story gets on the air. But he does make a valid point – the jurisdiction and duty of the Court, as intended by the Framers, was to resolve questions such as this case asks. Especially when there are differing opinions as to what is going on with a given law in the lower Courts.
There once came a time when the economic situation was chaotic. A long war had drained national resources and there was an overabundance of land and property available for speculative deals. To that end, numerous banks began making speculative loans backed up by literally nothing. The overextension of easy credit along with declining prices of non-land goods was causing a great deal of concern. And when the crap hit the fan, all hell broke loose.
Banks panicked and began calling in loans and foreclosing on the properties.
And then the politicians got involved…