News & Editorial by David Alan Carmichael
September 8, 2006

On August 17th, 2006, the Idaho Court of Appeals ruled against Larry Lewis regarding his religious accommodation request to the Idaho Department of Transportation.  The Court held that Section 666 of the Federal Welfare Code (42 USC §666) preempts the Idaho Free Exercise of Religion Protected statute (http://www.isc.idaho.gov/opinions/lewis8.pdf).  Because of that, Mr. Lewis cannot obtain a driver's license unless he identifies himself with a SSN that he believes is the number of the beast.  The ruling is very bad on its face but very important as far as our battle for religious liberty goes.  If the government can justify the quashing of religious liberty for the sake of their preferred method of administering a voluntary welfare program, they can quash it for any reason whatsoever.  We are working alongside Larry Lewis as he seeks a review of the decision by the Idaho Supreme Court.  The brief is being drafted by Herb Titus and will be submitted by September 19, 2006.  If the matter is not settled there, Larry may be seeking review by the United States Supreme Court.

The Federal government passed a law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and codified it at 42 USC §2000bb.  However, the statute was determined by the U.S. Supreme Court to not preempt State law on the basis of the Separation of Powers doctrine as it relates to the U.S. Constitution [City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 US 507 (1997)].  In response to the Boerne v. Flores ruling, Idaho and many other States enacted parallel statutes to apply in the State jurisdictions.  The purpose of the statutes was to reinstitute the proper approach to religious accommodation when a government rule conflicts with a religious practice.  The statute states that Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person— (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.  There are two important burdens on the government here.  They must first prove a “compelling” governmental interest and they must prove that there is not a less restrictive means of fulfilling that purpose.  What is often overlooked by the government is that the “compelling interest” cannot be merely a general interest to society at large but the interest must relate specifically “to the person” who’s religious practice is being burdened.

First, let us examine the term “compelling interest”.  It has a definition in law that is very important.  There are other types of “governmental interests”.  There are “legitimate interests”, there are “reasonable interests”.  What are the differences between them?  A “compelling interest” goes right to the point of why government exists.  It exists to secure liberty.  A government cannot tolerate a religious practice such as human sacrifice because the government is “compelled” to protect the liberty of the person who might be sacrificed.  If the government cannot stop the sacrifice (murder) it cannot perform the function for which it was created, securing liberty.  There are legitimate functions of government that do not rise to the level of “compelling” interests.  Regulating the use of automobiles on the public highways is a “legitimate” interest.  Automobiles can be used by one person without government regulation (or licensing) and still not injure the liberty of another person.  Because life, liberty and property rights of another person are threatened by the potential misuse of a two-ton automobile that can be propelled over 100 miles per hour, the regulation of the use of a motorized vehicle rises to the level of “legitimate“.  Notice the difference.  A “compelling” interest is where the government is absolutely obligated to restrict particular behavior for the sake of the liberty of society in total.  A “legitimate” interest is where the government has a responsibility to provide oversight when various people’s liberty is threatened but not certain to be injured.  Though government may only have a “legitimate” interest in regulating the use of an automobile, the interest may rise to the level of “compelling” with regard to a “person” who demonstrates that they do endanger society when given the permit to operate a motorize vehicle. 

Next, there are reasonable interests.  Welfare programs can only rise to reasonable interests.  Such a program is a benefit to the participant and a responsibility of the government to provide any benefit by choice rather than obligation of either party.  With regard to an agency’s internal operation of its welfare program, it is given extremely wide latitude as to how it will manage its own program.  A “person” who volunteers to participate in the program is generally stuck with having to accept the terms of the agency’ rules.  There is some protection afforded to a “person” when the agency violates its own rules or violates the laws specific to that agency.  If a person violates the rules of the voluntary program, the agency can then apply sanctions and can feasibly prove a legitimate cause of action against that “person.“  

In Mr. Lewis’s case, the government argued that it must refuse a driver’s license (licensing is a legitimate interest of government though not compelling) to Mr. Lewis (liberty interest in the common right to use his property and the common conveyance of the day in the ordinary course of life and business) unless he forsake his faith (Liberty Interest - Religious Obligations and Practices) in order for Idaho to comply with a Federal Welfare Program (reasonable governmental interest) in their enforcement against dead-beat dads of which Mr. Lewis is not one of those “person“/s.  Since Mr. Lewis is not a deadbeat dad subject to sanctions by the welfare program, he cannot be a “person” whom the government can have a compelling, legitimate, or reasonable interest in having him forsake his religious practice for the sake of enforcing a deadbeat dad sanction. 

The vast majority of government agents that we have dealt with over these last nine years do not know or understand law.  They know about certain statutes or regulations but they still seem to not know or understand law.  Since they do not know or understand “law”, they cannot apply the statutes and regulations properly in given situations where there happens to be a conflict.  The supposed purpose of the deadbeat dad statute is not to sanction those who will not identify with a SSN, it is to sanction deadbeat dads.  The supposed governmental interest is not to firmly establish a national identification number system that has 100% human compliance.  Instead the governmental interest is to enforce sanctions against deadbeat dads.  There is grave danger looming when those who are entrusted to apply and enforce the law to secure liberty believe their power is given them to enforce statutes and rules at the price of liberty.

www.christianliberty.org
See related article "Free Exercise of Religion Protected" Statute Not Protected From Section 666 SSN Identification Law by H. Lance Freeman

David Alan Carmichael is available for Speaking Engagements through Freedom Ministries www.faithfrontier.com/freedom 
(757) 850-1245

If you received this by email, you were placed on our list because of past correspondence that we had with you.  To have your email removed from our list, or to have a duplicate email removed, please reply to the email we sent or click here and place a note explaining your request.