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.
>might be worse than death (although very few slaves ever thought so,
>any time), but in modern circumstances it is hard to think of any
>liberty that is worth dying for.

William O'Rights does not Argue:

Robert Ettinger writes in part:
>Again, there are no simple 
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

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

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.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=24422