1st Amendment has its limits – Thousand Oaks Acorn

By TO Acorn Staff | on August 13, 2020

Im writing to address Ms. Hubbs (Letters, July 30), and in particular the notion that Rob McCoy, Godspeak church and its religious followers have a constitutional right to choose whether to comply with the statutory law and orders from the governor involving the public health and well-being, as analytically void of any legal merit.

Ms. Hubbs misstates the authority of the First Amendment. Indeed, the First Amendment has never been interpreted to override any and all other laws of the land.

Rather, its held to coexist in harmony with other laws and amendments that from time to time may be deemed to conflict or be in tension with one another.

This is true not only with the First Amendment but with all 27 of them. The First Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court since its inception consists of two provisions, the establishment clause and the free exercise clause.

Your comments pertain only to the free exercise clause. This provision protects the rights of citizens to practice their religion as they please. But this right is not without limitssuch as overriding a compelling government interest.

Please inform yourself. Read cases such as Prince v. Mass (1944) where the high court held that state authorities could force the inoculation of children whose parents would not allow such action because of their religious beliefs.

There, the Supreme Court held that the state of Massachusetts had an unfettered, overriding interest in protecting the public health and safety, thereby confirming that when it comes to compelling government interests such as the publics health and well-beingthe First Amendment will subjugate to the state authority.

Rick SoraccoWestlake Village

See the article here:

1st Amendment has its limits - Thousand Oaks Acorn