Respect the Constitution MD

Respect the Constitution MD RTC has filed an application to attain non-profit status as a 501(c) 3 organization.

RTC educates the public about the principles of the Constitution and assists the public in protecting these principles.

06/15/2020

Today RTC provides the following thought leadership on a recent action taken by Mayor Muriel Bowser for the District of Columbia.

Question: Whether it is constitutional for the mayor of the District of Columbia, using taxpayer funds and acting under and within her power and authority as mayor, to paint on the public street leading to the White House, the expression that Black Lives Matter?

Just recently Mayor Bowser was in the news. Using taxpayer’s funds (emphasis added) she instructed county workers to paint in giant yellow letters down the city’s 16th Street near the White House, the slogan “Black Lives Matter” on the public street.

One reason Respect The Constitution (RTC) organization was established was to hold politicians accountable to their oath as expressed by RTC’s guiding principle "Rise above politics to hold our elected representatives to their oath to respect the principles of the Constitution ".

Has Mayor Bowser violated her oath of office? Quite frankly yes.

At its core, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution functions as a constitutional guarantee that no person or group will be denied the protection under the law that is enjoyed by similar persons or groups. In other words, persons similarly situated must be similarly treated. Equal protection is extended when the rules of law are applied equally in all like cases and when persons are exempt from obligations greater than those imposed upon others in like circumstances. The courts use a strict scrutiny test to enforce the principles of the 14th Amendment.
Mayor Bowser cannot satisfy the strict scrutiny analysis, because her arbitrary classifications are not narrowly tailored measures that further compelling government interests as the public street expression only applies to “Black Lives”.
Actually, RTC would submit that the name Black Lives Matter is discriminatory on its face as it only pertains to one class of lives and because it 'shows favoritism towards one race.
The 14th Amendment principles demands that government officials have the perspective that “All Lives Matter” (no suspect classification emphasis added). Without doubt, the actions of Mayor Bowser are unconstitutional. RTC would encourage all citizens to hold all politicians accountable by applying the strict scrutiny analysis to all government actions as you go through your daily activities.

06/03/2020

Today RTC provides the following thought leadership on a recently issued Supreme Court ruling for the 1st Amendment:
Question: Whether the Supreme Court of the United States has reduced the free exercise of religion as comparable to going to a music concert?

Just recently on May 29, 2020 the Supreme Court of the United States in ruling No. 19A044 denied a California church’s request for a temporary injunction as California was applying a 25% cap on the number of worshippers who are allowed to attend church services, but the 25% cap was applied to other businesses such as Walmart.

In its 29 May 2020 ruling the Supreme Court indicates that:
“Although California’s guidelines place restrictions on places of worship, those restrictions appear consistent with the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Similar or more severe restrictions apply to comparable secular gatherings, including lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, and theatrical performances, where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time.”

Yes, incredibly the Supreme Court of the United States has reduced the free exercise of religion as comparable to going to a music concert (emphasis added). The justices of the Supreme Court are viewing the free exercise of religion, not from a textual reading of the 1st Amendment, but from a viewpoint from own personal views on the importance of the free exercise of religion. This is clearly wrong and fails to engage in a process of reasoned elaboration. Furthermore, such a ruling renders the language of the 1st Amendment as meaningless.

Last time RTC examined and read the Constitution there was no bill of rights amendment to attend a music concert, which is a staggering contradiction.

RTC would agree with the dissenting of opinion of Justice Kavanaugh who would have allowed the temporary injunction and respected the language of the 1st Amendment.

05/26/2020

Whether the constitutional right to assembly and speech may be subject to government restrictions?

The right to assembly and speech may be subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 578. Content neutral time, place, and manner restrictions on First Amendment rights are subject to intermediate scrutiny. See Ross v. Early, 746 F.3d 546, 552 (4th Cir. 2014). The content-neutral regulation must be “narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and . . . leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.” Ward, 491 U.S. at 791 (citations omitted). “[T]he requirement of narrow tailoring is satisfied ‘so long as the . . . regulation promotes a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation.’” Id. at 799 (citations omitted); see also Blasecki v. City of Durham, N. C., 456 F.2d 87, 91 (4th Cir. 1972) (“[W]henever the state restricts the right of assembly . . . the state must have a compelling interest in the subject matter to justify abridgment, and the scope of the abridgment itself must not be greater than reasonably necessary to serve the state interest.”). Additionally, “‘[u]nder the pressure of great dangers,’ constitutional rights may be reasonably restricted ‘as the safety of the general public may demand.’ That settled rule allows the state to restrict, for example, one’s right to peaceably assemble, to publicly worship, to travel, and even to leave one’s home.” In re Abbott, 954 F.3d at 778 (quoting Jacobson, 197 U.S. at 29).

RTC further commentary: As the above indicates, the judiciary have added exceptions for the regulation of the constitutional rights of freedom of assembly and speech. Furthermore, the judiciary has articulated exceptions which are couched in riddle and people of ordinary intelligence are unable to comply.

05/18/2020

Whether federal courts are treating federal and state executive orders differently?

A troubling dichotomy has emerged in federal courts during the COVID-19 pandemic. Some courts have given broad deference to the state executive branch, even when actions such as the executive orders issued by various state governors that infringe upon fundamental rights and also exceed statutory authority.

At the same time, other courts have closely scrutinized the constitutionality of the exercise of federal executive power, striking down many executive actions taken by, most recently, President Trump.

In United States v. California, 921 F.3d 865 (9th Cir. 2019), the Court allowed states to order state law enforcement to be uncooperative with federal immigration authorities.
In California v. Trump, 407 F.Supp.3d 869, 892 (N.D. Cal. 2019), the federal court gave a close reading to 10 U.S.C. § 2801(a)’s use of the term “military installation” to bar President Trump’s use of military funds for a border wall, despite acknowledging that he was in the right in his declaration of a state of emergency.

In Innovation Law Lab v. Wolf, 951 F.3d 1073, 1087-88 (9th Cir. 2020), the Court went so far as to cite U.S. obligations to asylum seekers under a U.N. refugee treaty as a basis for rejecting President Trump’s rule that asylum seekers “must enter through official port of entry.”

Federal courts have treated claims challenging executive actions, including under emergency authority, very differently depending upon which executive is claiming broad deference. This dichotomy poorly serves the administration of justice.

05/15/2020

Why are Governor Hogan’s Executive Orders Unconstitutional?

Governor Hogan’s Executive Orders Essential and Non-Essential Test For Businesses To Remain Open Is An Arbitrary and Capricious Standard and Invites Political Motivations for Duration and Enforcement of Such Executive Orders by Our Elected Representatives, thus Such Executive Orders Are Unconstitutional.

05/14/2020

Thank you to everyone who has recently liked our page!

Join us for an upcoming webinar on June 18, 2020 which will discuss certain constitutional principles dealing with executive orders.

A link will follow!

05/07/2020

Like My Page Respect the Constitution

Address

14405 Laurel Place Suite 316
Laurel, MD
20707

Opening Hours

Monday 9am - 5pm
Tuesday 9am - 5pm
Wednesday 9am - 5pm
Thursday 9am - 5pm
Friday 9am - 5pm

Telephone

+14103016303

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Respect the Constitution MD posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Organization

Send a message to Respect the Constitution MD:

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Mission Statement

Citizens Promoting Respect for the Constitution Now, Inc. (“Respect the Constitution” or “RTC”), a conservative, non-partisan educational non-profit, which promotes the principles of the United States Constution and the law consistent with such principles. Through its educational programs RTC advocates high standards of ethics and morality in our nation’s public life and seeks to ensure that political and judicial officials do not abuse the powers entrusted to them by the American people. RTC fulfills its mission through by using the judicial system to hold the conduct of our elected representatives to the principles of the Constitution.

The guiding theme of RTC is “"Rise above politics to hold our elected Representatives to their oath to respect the principles of the constitution”.

To this end, RTC uses the principles contained in the United States to hold to account politicians and public officials who suppress our civil liberties. Litigation and the civil discovery process not only uncover information for the education of the American people on unconstitutional issues, but can also provide a basis for authorities to restore our founding principles. RTC seeks to ensure high ethical standards in the judiciary through monitoring activities and the use of the litigation to hold our elected leaders to account.

RTC’s investigation, legal, and judicial activities provide the basis for strong educational outreach to the American people. RTC’s public education programs include speeches, opinion editorials (op-eds), publications, educational conferences, media outreach, radio and news television appearances, and direct radio outreach through informational commercials and public service announcements.