Separation of Church and State Law

Home » Law/Misc. » Jerald Finney: Legal Issues » Lawyers Answer Legal Questions in Online Forum

Lawyers Answer Legal Questions in Online Forum

This page is being started 102617
The questions would be humorous if not so misguided.
Serious questions from rationale people not included here, for the most part, although some of these questions are serious and show the state of misguided law.

1. Question (102617): I believe I have a case under the religious freedom restoration act? it states the purpose is: to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government. God is in my life and requiring me only to do drugs because I like to as part of my Christian religion and I am being substantially burdened by the government because they are illegal. I need to know what damages I can seek etc and if it is possible to sue under this act.

Asked about 22 hours ago – Carthage, TX
Practice area: Constitutional
Freedom of Religion

My Answer: Legal arguments have been mentioned by other lawyers. However, I am both a lawyer and a Christian. Anyone can call himself a Christian. However, the standard to test the truth of that is the Bible; this cannot seriously be questioned by anyone. Jesus Christ, the founder of Christianity, teaches nowhere in his Word that one is to alter his state of mind except by the regeneration which occurs with the New Birth. The Bible teaches that you are not to alter your mind, or open your mind to the influence of evil powers by placing it in an altered state of consciousness. Drugs to that very thing, as does alcohol. Seems to me that you would have a serious difficulty in first establishing the important factual question: “Are you a Christian?”

The online question with answers from other lawyers can be viewed by clicking here.


 2. Question asked October 27, 2017: Is the father of a 17 year old girl allowed to forbid her from wearing a normal piece of clothing? A girl wore a pair of denim shorts that her father claimed to be too short and is forcing her to get rid of them. However, she has worn them numerous times in the past and he never had a problem with them. Is the father infringing his daughter’s First Amendment right of freedom of expression?

One Lawyer’s answer:

Criminal Defense Attorney – Amarillo, TX. I agree with Mr. Ninomiya. Parents have draconian control until you are 18. But, you might go ahead and grow up and start acting like an adult instead of a child since you will soon legally be an adult.

The online question with answers from other lawyers, including my answer, can be viewed by clicking here. You may be surprised at how the lawyers answered this question.


3. Question asked October 27, 2017: Why are we lightening up on criminals that use a gun but continually pass new gun laws that only affect honest gun owners in Ca? I am an honest gun owner with a carry permit. I am tired of all the new laws aimed at taking guns from honest Californian gun owners. Why make a law that gives liberal judges the decision on sentencing?

One Lawyer’s answer:

Criminal Defense Attorney – Amarillo, TX.  That’s the way things are in the peoples’ democratic Socialist republic of Conformalia. Democracy in action. Vote in different leaders. Institutions have only as much integrity as the people who staff them. If your staffers have no respect for the law, there is no law, only the capricious whims of the staff.

4. Question. October 28, 2017 – Vancouver, WA; Practice area: Constitutional

I have a defamation question. I want to comment on something a person said in a nationally televised speech. I should give a concrete example to illustrate my concern.  Candidate Barack Obama responded to a question in a debate in April 2008. The question was: “Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms?”  Mr. Obama replied: “As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms.”  My comment on this exchange would be: “How is it that a person, who taught Constitutional Law, and who, as a US Senator, has sworn an oath, does not understand that the Constitution does not confer anything, rights or otherwise, to individual citizens? At best, this indicates a profound lack of understanding of the Constitution, and the BoR in particular, enough so that this candidate ought to be disqualified from any government office. How can anybody defend that which they either do not understand or do not agree with?”  I am writing a book that would include comments of this type, although this particular comment is just an example. How vulnerable would this written observation make me to a defamation suit?

 

%d bloggers like this: