X-Message-Number: 24422 Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:09:53 -0700 (PDT) From: William O'Rights <> Subject: Liberty and Death Robert Ettinger writes: >2. Of "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," the first and >condition precedent is life. With life you always have at least a degree of >liberty; without life you have no liberty whatsoever, no choices at all. Slavery >might be worse than death (although very few slaves ever thought so, anywhere, >any time), but in modern circumstances it is hard to think of any particular >liberty that is worth dying for. William O'Rights does not Argue: Robert Ettinger writes in part: >Again, there are no simple >answers. William O'Rights does not Argue: Robert Ettinger writes: >4. We must keep clear the distinction between individual values and >community values or ethics. They don't always coincide. William O'Rights does not Argue: Robert Ettinger writes in part: >1. In practice, the Constitution is not always the supreme law of the land. >Sometimes judges reinvent it... Unfortunately, I concur. That issues was touched upon during the HB 2637 fight. Reprinted below. Arizona Funeral Board Director Rudy Thomas has been quoted as saying, There s no difference between cryonics and cremation, (Arizona Capitol Times, 23 Sept 2003) and These companies need to be regulated or deregulated out of business (New York Times, 14 Oct 2003). ...a state statute or program might involve the state impermissibly in monitoring and overseeing religious affairs. MARSH v. CHAMBERS, 463 U.S. 783 (1983). The record in this case compels the conclusion that suppression of the central element of the Universal Life Extension Church religious activity (cryonic suspension) is the object of the HB 2637. These comments compel a finding of improper targeting of the Universal Life Extensions religion, the choice of these words is support for our conclusion. No one suggests, and, on this record, it cannot be maintained, that the Arizona Funeral Board had in mind a religious activity other than cryonic suspension. The comments we have recited discloses animosity to Universal Life Extension adherents and their religious practices, HB 2637, by it's own terms, targets this religious exercise and the text of HB 2637 has been gerrymandered with care to inhibit religious cryonic suspension. HB 2637 suppress much more religious conduct than is necessary in order to achieve any legitimate State interest. HB 2637 is not neutral. [A law burdening religious practice that is not neutral must undergo the most rigorous of scrutiny.] To satisfy the commands of the First Amendment, a law restrictive of religious practice must advance "`interests of the highest order,'" and must be narrowly tailored in pursuit of those interests. McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S., at 628 , quoting Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215 (1972). The Free Exercise Clause commits government itself to religious tolerance, and upon even slight suspicion that proposals for state intervention stem from animosity to religion or distrust of its practices, all officials must pause to remember their own high duty to the Constitution and to the rights it secures. Those in office must be resolute in resisting importunate demands and must ensure that the sole reasons for imposing the burdens of law and regulation are secular. Legislators may not devise mechanisms, overt or disguised, designed to persecute or oppress a religion or its practices. The proposed law here in question cannot be enacted contrary to these constitutional principles. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction, between a government with limited and unlimited powers, is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act. Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it. The powers of the legislature are defined, and limited, and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. Live Long and Well Rev. William C. O'Rights PhD Founder and President Universal Live Extension Church, Inc. ===== William Constitution O'Rights The First Immortal __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=24422