Correct.
Nope. Now you are chanting. You haven't shown this prohibition because it doesn't exist in the 1st Amendment.
Wrong wording, but Congress can create a language.
You are not disagreeing. You are agreeing. The Executive branch determines policy whereas Congress legislates. Did you catch that clause in Article 1 granting Congress all legislative power?
All State functions that are reserved to the States occur under Congressional legislation of interstate commerce. Congress gets to determine what constitutes interstate commerce.
The entire legal system is based on this "misconception." It is certainly not based on a person who "feels" he was searched unreasonably and a jury who agrees with him. Challenging a search would be heard in an appellate court with no jury.
It is the essence of the 1st amendment. When government can decide the meaning of my religion, it is no longer free. Can the definition include a requirment that I attend church every Sunday and tithe?
no.
Stop with the third grade atheism. I doesn't look good on you.
That is not the way law works. If it is a criminal case the penal code defines the crime and lists the elements. I never said they redefine the term depending on the case. My point is that there are no laws defining religion--read more carefully.
You're only going to get tax breaks by electing the tax and regulation cutter in Donald Trump.
They can mean the same thing.
Nope. Only your misconception is based on this misconception.
Yes, that is one such example of the purpose of the courts. When one party feels wronged, the party takes its case to court. Those who never feel wronged never go to court.
Appellate courts hear appeals, hence the name. An illegal search is handled by the district court where the illegal search occurred and all fruit of the poison tree discarded.
Sure, but the judge can only decide the illegal search, not bring in the citizen to fight the illegal search.
I've read it many times., and I read it again upon your recent mention (thank you). It confirms that no law is to be interpreted, but prior decisions are.
As much as I want to agree with your sentiment, the President has no more say in taxation than you do.
Nope. I see you insisting that a certain prohibition is the "essence" of the 1st Amendment... but it simply is not there. I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
You screwed the pooch there. You need to remove the word "my."
Nope. Each of us has freedom of religion and for some it is very personal. My religion has the same rights as yours.
Sure ... and that is totally irrelevant. You have not shown how Congress defining "religion" somehow violates the 1st Amendment.
Nope. I'll post the text of the 1st Amendment here again, so we can marvel at its straightforward simplicity while simultaneously noting that it bears no prohibition against defining the word "religion," "exercise," "speech," "grievance," "redress," "press," or any other word in the English language. Let's take a closer look:
I regularly post text from the Constitution on JPP.
We've been over this. You have repeatedly stopped short of showing how this clause is somehow violated by a definition of the word "religion."
Not according to Article 1 Section 1 of the Constitution.
Oh but the president has the initial say in the tax cuts, as was started by Trump in 2017.
That was a lie the first time. It will be a lie the second time.
but it must be defined for law to operate.
I see the facts I posted in #157 were just too much for you to take into your distorted brain.
