{"id":28,"date":"2008-08-27T13:12:14","date_gmt":"2008-08-27T13:12:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/lynnvsekulow\/2008\/08\/heres-your-constitutional.html"},"modified":"2008-08-27T13:12:14","modified_gmt":"2008-08-27T13:12:14","slug":"heres-your-constitutional","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2008\/08\/heres-your-constitutional.html","title":{"rendered":"Here’s Your Constitutional"},"content":{"rendered":"

I’m glad to see that we can agree that Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito upheld First Amendment rights against overzealous regulation of political speech. In my view, however, the IRS restrictions on candidate endorsement are another example of “over-regulation of political ideas in the name of ‘good government.'” As Barry knows, the “election sermon” was quite common throughout the country from colonial times until 1954 when then-Senator Lyndon Johnson introduced an amendment that became law that barred tax-exempt groups, including churches, from participating in political activity. A legislative repeal of these provisions is needed to restore unbridled free speech to religious leaders of all faiths.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/p>\n

Regarding abortion, millions of Americans believe in the personhood of the unborn for a variety of moral, legal, religious, and scientific reasons. Since Barry raised the issue of the Bible’s discussion of the unborn, it should be noted that there are numerous Biblical passages that state that God creates and forms each person in their mother’s womb and that unborn children can sense and react to God’s presence. Regardless of one’s theological views, however, the key question remains whether the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments provide a constitutional right to abortion that trumps legislative efforts to protect human dignity.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/p>\n

On a different note, ds0490 made the following comment in response to an earlier post: “I’m curious to know if Mr. Sekulow disagrees with the Court’s decision in Loving v. Virginia<\/i>, Brown v. Board of Education<\/i>, or Dred Scott v. Sanford<\/i>. In the first two the Court ‘created’ rights and in the second it ‘honored’ the intent of Congress.” Here is my response:<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/p>\n

Brown v. Board of Education<\/i> and Loving v. Virginia<\/i> were correctly decided. The Court did not create any new rights but simply upheld the right to be free from invidious racial discrimination expressly provided by the Constitution.<\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/p>\n

The Fourteenth Amendment, enacted shortly after the Civil War, states in relevant part: “No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This provision was designed to ensure that state and local governments would not treat African-Americans less favorably than whites, thus denying them the “equal protection of the laws.”<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/p>\n

In Brown v. Board of Education<\/i>, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), the Court held that racially segregated public school systems “are inherently unequal” and violate the Equal Protection Clause. Id.<\/i> at 495. The Court held that “the opportunity of an education . . . where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.” Id.<\/i> at 493.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/p>\n

In Loving v. Virginia<\/i>, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), the Court invalidated a law prohibiting inter-racial marriage, noting that such provisions “arose as an incident to slavery.” Id.<\/i> at 6. The Court correctly noted that “[t]he clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States.” Id.<\/i> at 10. The Court applied the longstanding principle that “the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the ‘most rigid scrutiny.'” Id.<\/i> at 11.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/p>\n

The Brown<\/i> and Loving<\/i> decisions recognized and applied the compelling interest in eradicating racial discrimination expressly stated in the Fourteenth Amendment.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I’m glad to see that we can agree that Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito upheld First Amendment rights against overzealous regulation of political speech. In my view, however, the IRS restrictions on candidate endorsement are another example of “over-regulation of political ideas in the name of ‘good government.’” As Barry knows, the “election sermon”…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":163,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-28","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-abortion","category-courts"],"yoast_head":"\nHere's Your Constitutional - Lynn v. Sekulow<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2008\/08\/heres-your-constitutional.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Here's Your Constitutional - Lynn v. Sekulow\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"I’m glad to see that we can agree that Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito upheld First Amendment rights against overzealous regulation of political speech. In my view, however, the IRS restrictions on candidate endorsement are another example of “over-regulation of political ideas in the name of ‘good government.'” As Barry knows, the “election sermon”…\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2008\/08\/heres-your-constitutional.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Lynn v. Sekulow\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-08-27T13:12:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Jay Sekulow\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Here's Your Constitutional - Lynn v. Sekulow","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2008\/08\/heres-your-constitutional.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Here's Your Constitutional - Lynn v. Sekulow","og_description":"I’m glad to see that we can agree that Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito upheld First Amendment rights against overzealous regulation of political speech. In my view, however, the IRS restrictions on candidate endorsement are another example of “over-regulation of political ideas in the name of ‘good government.'” As Barry knows, the “election sermon”…","og_url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2008\/08\/heres-your-constitutional.html","og_site_name":"Lynn v. Sekulow","article_published_time":"2008-08-27T13:12:14+00:00","author":"Jay Sekulow","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2008\/08\/heres-your-constitutional.html","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2008\/08\/heres-your-constitutional.html","name":"Here's Your Constitutional - Lynn v. Sekulow","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-27T13:12:14+00:00","dateModified":"2008-08-27T13:12:14+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#\/schema\/person\/d09bc4c4bba2ac87034ee529f100fbaf"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2008\/08\/heres-your-constitutional.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2008\/08\/heres-your-constitutional.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2008\/08\/heres-your-constitutional.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Here’s Your Constitutional"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/","name":"Lynn v. Sekulow","description":"A debate blog about church, state, faith and politics with Jay Sekulow and Barry W. Lynn","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#\/schema\/person\/d09bc4c4bba2ac87034ee529f100fbaf","name":"Jay Sekulow","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/574\/574bc7f1605fea9a78a1b3bac65ceb15x96.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/574\/574bc7f1605fea9a78a1b3bac65ceb15x96.jpg","caption":"Jay Sekulow"},"description":"Jay Alan Sekulow is Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), a law firm and educational organization that focuses on constitutional law.  He is also Chief Counsel of the European Center for Law and Justice (ECLJ). Jay Sekulow has also served as a faculty member for the Office of Legal Education at the United States Department of Justice.  As a member of the faculty he instructed Assistant United States Attorneys and investigators in the First Amendment issues associated with prosecution of obscenity. An accomplished and respected judicial advocate, Sekulow has presented oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in numerous cases in defense of constitutional freedoms. Several landmark cases argued by Sekulow before the U.S. Supreme Court have become part of the legal landscape in the area of religious liberty litigation.  In the Mergens case, Sekulow cleared the way for public school students to form Bible clubs and religious organizations on their school campuses.  In the Lamb's Chapel case, Sekulow defended the free speech rights of religious groups, ensuring that they be treated equally with respect to the use of public facilities.  And, most recently, in McConnell v. FEC, Sekulow ensured that the constitutional rights of young people remain protected with a unanimous decision by the high court guaranteeing that minors can participate in political campaigns. A nationally recognized and respected defender of religious freedom, Sekulow has assembled one of the most prestigious law firms in the nation.  Founded in 1990, the American Center for Law and Justice focuses in constitutional law.  The ACLJ, under Sekulow's direction, is involved in public interest and public policy issues working to protect religious and constitutional liberties. In 2007, the Chicago Tribune concluded that the ACLJ has \"led the way\" in Christian legal advocacy.  In 2005, TIME Magazine named Sekulow one of the \"25 Most Influential Evangelicals\" in America and called the ACLJ \"a powerful counterweight\" to the ACLU.  Business Week said the ACLJ is \"the leading advocacy group for religious freedom.\"  Sekulow's work on the issue of judicial nominees - including possible vacancies at the Supreme Court - has received extensive news coverage including a front page story in The Wall Street Journal.  In addition, The National Law Journal has twice named Sekulow one of the \"100 Most Influential Lawyers\" in the United States (1994, 1997).  He is also among a distinguished group of attorneys known as \"The Public Sector 45\" named by The American Lawyer (January\/February 1997).  The magazine said the designation represents \"45 young lawyers outside the private sector whose vision and commitment are changing lives.\" Sekulow brings insight and education to listeners daily with his national call-in radio program, Jay Sekulow Live!, which is broadcast throughout the country on nearly 850 radio stations.  Sekulow also hosts a weekly television program, ACLJ This Week, which tackles the tough issues of the day and is broadcast on a number of networks nationwide including the Trinity Broadcasting Network and FamilyNet.  Sekulow is also a popular guest on nationally televised news programs on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, CNBC, and PBS.  He frequently contributes articles and commentary to national publications and is often quoted in the nation's leading newspapers including USA Today, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and Washington Times. A graduate of Mercer University, Sekulow graduated cum laude receiving both a bachelor's degree and doctor of jurisprudence from Mercer University where he served on the Mercer Law Review as an editorial staff member.  Following graduation, Sekulow served as a tax trial attorney in the Office of Chief Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service.  In that capacity, Sekulow prepared and brought to trial tax cases on behalf of the United States Department of Treasury in United States Tax Court. He also received a Ph.D. from Regent University, with a dissertation on American Legal History, and is the author of numerous publications and law articles. Sekulow serves as a member of the Board of Trustees for The Supreme Court Historical Society in Washington, DC.","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/author\/jsekulow"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/163"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=28"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}