I actually agree. The original Roe v. Wade decision interpreted the constitution so incredibly broadly, as to say that rights not explicitly laid out in the constitution, were still guaranteed by the constitution. I support this type of broad interpretation of the constitution.
The problem is that those same justices refused to ever apply this broad interpretation to anything else besides killing babies, even to rights that are explicitly written, like the second amendment. It's clear that the Roe v. Wade decision was an attempt to legislate from the bench, rather than applying a consistent interpretation of the constitution.
My personal interpretation of the constitution is that "freedom of religion" should apply to damn near everything. I believe that "religion" shouldn't just be viewed as spirituality in this context, but rather the entire way you live your life, which, historically, was guided entirely by spirituality.
The courts, at times, seem to agree with my interpretation, but they never allow it to be applied. They'll say that freedom of religion does not only apply to organized religions and that deeply held individual beliefs are protected, but then they'll throw in a line like "unless there is a compelling governmental interest" (literally verbatim, btw, that's not just me making shit up, there is a lot of rulings that say that exactly), that essentially makes the whole amendment null and void.
I believe that the first amendment should prevent the government from forcing you to do anything. The government should only have the authority to prevent you from doing certain things which impact others directly. That is, even if you argue that me not wearing a mask will hurt you, you cannot force me to live against my natural state by donning one. But if you argue that me coughing on you will hurt you, then a law preventing that action that could be fair game.
I actually agree. The original Roe v. Wade decision interpreted the constitution so incredibly broadly, as to say that rights not explicitly laid out in the constitution, were still guaranteed by the constitution. I support this type of broad interpretation of the constitution.
The problem is that those same justices refused to ever apply this broad interpretation to anything else besides killing babies, even to rights that are explicitly written, like the second amendment. It's clear that the Roe v. Wade decision was an attempt to legislate from the bench, rather than applying a consistent interpretation of the constitution.
My personal interpretation of the constitution is that "freedom of religion" should apply to damn near everything. I believe that "religion" shouldn't just be viewed as spirituality in this context, but rather the entire way you live your life, which, historically, was guided entirely by spirituality.
The courts, at times, seem to agree with my interpretation, but they never allow it to be applied. They'll say that freedom of religion does not only apply to organized religions and that deeply held individual beliefs are protected, but then they'll throw in a line like "unless there is a compelling governmental interest" (literally verbatim, btw, that's not just me making shit up, there is a lot of rulings that say that exactly), that essentially makes the whole amendment null and void.
I believe that the first amendment should prevent the government from forcing you to do anything. The government should only have the authority to prevent you from doing certain things which impact others directly. That is, even if you argue that me not wearing a mask will hurt you, you cannot force me to live against my natural state by donning one. But if you argue that me coughing on you will hurt you, then a law preventing that action that could be fair game.