Participants: Lincoln Steed (Host), Dwayne Leslie
Series Code: LI
Program Code: LI000152
|
00:22 Welcome to the Liberty Insider.
00:25 This is the program bringing you discussion 00:27 and news and updates on religious liberty 00:30 developments around the world 00:32 and with some focus on the United States. 00:34 My name is, Lincoln Steed, Editor of Liberty Magazine. 00:37 And my guest on the program is, Dwayne Leslie. 00:40 Welcome Dwayne. Thank you, glad to be here. 00:42 You're the Legislative Liaison 00:44 for the Seventh-day Adventist Church, 00:45 just to put you in a context for our regular viewers. 00:49 I want to talk about a Supreme Court case that 00:52 as we record this hasn't quite been settled, 00:54 but it just recently went before the Supreme Court, 00:57 they've heard oral argument. 00:59 And now we're waiting to see, what happens. 01:01 But it's the Hosanna-Tabor case. 01:05 What is this concern? 01:06 Well, it's actually interesting case in it. 01:08 It's shaping up to be one of the most 01:10 important religious cases over the last 20 years. 01:14 In this case, it will really decide 01:16 to what extent a religious organization 01:20 can oversee its hiring decisions 01:25 of employees that are deemed to be ministers. 01:29 You know, why should a church, 01:32 in fact you can use the word, 01:33 but it all hinges on exemptions, doesn't it? 01:36 Why should a church have an exemption from the state? 01:40 Well, what happens is that, 01:41 you've two conflicting issues that are at play here. 01:45 You know, church is traditionally 01:46 as part of freedom of religion, 01:48 have the right to decide who can be a minister 01:51 under their particular organization. 01:54 But then, they're other rules in this country 01:56 that say that employees cannot be 01:59 discriminated against in the public specter. 02:03 And so in this case though, 02:05 there's been an exception that says, 02:07 churches have pretty much unfettered right 02:11 to decide who can and cannot be a minister 02:15 and can make decisions on hiring and firing 02:19 without any inference from the government. 02:21 So what led to this issue 02:24 being discussed by the, Supreme Court, 02:26 there's always a particular case? Sure, 02:27 So what are the particulars, what happened? 02:30 Well, in this specific case we had a school teacher, 02:34 Cheryl Perich, who was, 02:36 she was suffering from a disability 02:38 or that's what she claimed 02:40 and so that impacted her performance 02:43 and so she actually asked to take 02:44 some time off to focus on that. 02:47 The school subsequently replaced her 02:49 and when she felt she was ready to comeback, 02:52 she was not able to get her job back, and so-- 02:56 Sorry to interrupt, but you know, 02:57 I read a bit about this recently 02:59 and it reminded me of something that I've noticed 03:01 and I've heard others comment on. 03:03 The, the--some of the particulars 03:05 of this sort of embarrassment, 03:09 you and I might not act that way in that situation, 03:11 but it raises a bigger question. 03:14 Like when I read what she did, 03:17 if I was the employer I'd be a bit bothered too, 03:19 because she got sick, 03:21 she took leave which they granted. 03:23 And then she told them 03:25 that she was coming after they've gotten 03:27 their replacement teacher. 03:28 She says, oh I'm coming back such a, 03:30 such a day and they didn't acknowledge it. 03:33 And she just turned up 03:35 and when she turned up there was a bad scene 03:37 and she says, well I'm ready here, 03:39 I can do what I-you know, no problem. 03:41 And they thought well, we've a replacement teacher, 03:44 this would be disrupted to sort of pull that person 03:47 at a moments notice when, 03:48 you know, they hadn't agreed with her 03:50 and then she got offended said, 03:52 well I'm gonna sue you, going to invoke, 03:57 you know, a government. 03:58 Right, it was a disability claim, 04:00 she said, I'm being discriminated against. 04:01 But, you know, looking at it 04:02 just from a human relation point of view, 04:04 I think there was a conflict precipitated that 04:08 that with other individuals and in better times, 04:10 it might not have gone that way. 04:12 But given that it developed, 04:14 there is a very real issue for churches 04:17 and for how the government relates to them. 04:21 And on one level I've even argued against it, 04:25 you know, not against this case, 04:26 but the early Adventist church to go back 04:30 to Adventist history had a fierce debate 04:32 as to whether the church should have tax exemptions. 04:37 You know, why we, why should the state grant 04:41 and why should the church expect 04:45 that it would get some special treatment on tax. 04:48 And, you know, because that was settled in the end 04:50 and I remember, reading that, Ellen White, 04:53 said to early Adventist church. 04:55 She says, you know, God still moves upon kings 04:58 and princess and authorities to grant favors. 05:01 So it's not immoral for favor to be granted, 05:04 but it is a favor, isn't it? Right. 05:06 And, you know, you can trace the history 05:08 of special dealings between church 05:10 and states through the years. 05:11 But where this seems to hit the fan to me, 05:13 is it's an old assumption, that is not bad, 05:18 but it's, you know, has historical antecedents. 05:20 And old assumption of that special treatment 05:22 is running hot up against new rights 05:26 and not just privileges, 05:29 protection for people of disabilities. 05:32 Of course sex, and race, and now sexual orientation, 05:39 these things have been protected in the workplace. 05:42 And will the church be required 05:44 to grant what seems reasonable to most people. 05:47 Well, and that's why this case is of such great importance, 05:51 because if there is not deemed 05:53 to be this ministerial exception, 05:56 then the church would be required. 05:57 It would then be a slippery slope in terms of 06:00 having the government make decisions to say, 06:03 well, you the church cannot govern yourselves 06:07 according to your religious beliefs. 06:09 Now, we're just placing an article on Liberty Magazine, 06:13 written by a lawyer who you and I both know 06:20 and he studied the case and read the, 06:22 well actually he went to hear some of the hearings, 06:25 the arguments before the Supreme Court. 06:29 And as I read over that it struck me 06:31 that the issue of how the Catholic Church 06:34 is related to certain things including the priestly scandal 06:42 with sort of front and center 06:43 and it's an interesting discussion, 06:44 because, isn't six of the nine justices 06:48 were themselves Roman Catholics. 06:50 And I've seen no evidence that 06:53 the comments were colored by that, 06:54 but that's tension that's interesting. 06:57 The whole world has been watching for some years now, 07:00 as this priestly scandal is blown outside. 07:03 Is it, is it even comprehensible 07:06 that there will be a status quo in this exemption 07:08 even as this scandal troubles 07:11 people within and without the church 07:12 Well, but I think the problem is that 07:15 where do you draw the line, 07:16 because what we don't want to do is have courts 07:19 making decisions based on applying religious principles. 07:24 And the court has been very hesitant to do that 07:26 and if you look at the transcript 07:28 from what some of the justices were saying, 07:30 they don't really want to do this. 07:32 But part of one of the determining task is, 07:35 what it constitutes a minister. 07:36 When if someone is a priest, a pastor, a rabbi, 07:39 they clearly fall in that category. 07:41 If they are janitor or sort of lower level employee, 07:46 they clearly are not. 07:47 But, you know, who is in that middle category 07:49 and how far down does the protection extend. 07:51 So do you see any evidence 07:52 they're going to narrow 07:54 the definition of one of minister? 07:56 I think, it's really up in the air. 07:58 I mean I think the questioning, 08:00 I mean the government took the EOC 08:02 sort of came forth position that, 08:04 it was not the easiest to defend in the oral argument. 08:07 But I think that at the end of the day, 08:10 I hope that they'll preserve the exception. 08:12 Yeah, now I need to make it clear too, 08:14 from the perspective, we're working for the church 08:19 and from the perspective of being a church insider 08:22 and knowing what we were doing 08:24 and what needs to be protected. 08:25 Of course, we want the Supreme Court 08:27 to uphold this exemption that really protects 08:31 the integrity of church operation. 08:33 Hiring and firing and how the ministers operate and so on. 08:36 And various church groups have submitted 08:38 front of the court briefs in support of this. 08:42 Whether that's in itself so sacred 08:46 that it can never be touched we will see. 08:51 Because there as I hinted that 08:52 more than hinted that as I brought up before, 08:55 there's no question that we've all been witnessed 08:59 to a betrayal of trust with some priests 09:03 in the Roman Catholic Church 09:05 and all of us wish for then to be some legal accountability 09:09 and we've been uncomfortable 09:11 to see not a church stance to be sure, 09:14 but some administrators within that church 09:17 who've actually sheltered 09:19 some of these perpetrators from legal accountability. 09:22 But those are, but I think that because, 09:24 that's a different case than in the Hassan-Tabor case. 09:28 I understand that it came up in the hearings. 09:31 They did, there was questioning about it, 09:33 but I think both sides rightly wanted to say, 09:36 this is an employment decision. 09:38 And so as in terms of criminal 09:42 or other legal liabilities separate 09:44 from deciding as a church, who can you hire, 09:46 who can you fire without oversight. 09:49 Because I think they purposely said, 09:52 this case is not to determine who the Catholic Church 09:55 can decide is an ordained priest or not. 09:58 Yes, true, they did discuss about ordination. 10:03 From when I first heard about this, 10:04 it sort of evoked historical analogs to me. 10:09 And I've always been taken by the story of, 10:12 Henry the II and Thomas Becket. 10:15 In fact, just a few days ago at home 10:17 we watched one of the old oldies with, 10:21 Richard Burton and Peter O'Toole, 10:27 acting out this story. 10:28 And it was a major event in English history, 10:32 where, Henry II, as descendent of William the conqueror, 10:37 hundred and some years removed from the conquest of England 10:41 and a Norman, and while we think of England, 10:46 as being the dying place, 10:47 the Normans really had ground down the Saxons, 10:50 it was not a nice occupation. 10:52 And here he had a friend, Thomas Becket, 10:56 who he trusted implicitly, Thomas Becket, was a Saxon. 11:00 He elevated him to be Chancellor of the Exchequer, 11:03 pretty much the top job working with the king. 11:06 He was in charge of the financial operations 11:09 of the government and the king got into 11:11 some trouble with the church. 11:15 The church said and I remember the exact issue, 11:19 the church said, that you, 11:22 the government courts are not empowered 11:25 to judge a priest who commits a civil crime. 11:29 We'll judge him ourselves. 11:31 And the king of course wanted to deal with it. 11:35 And he finally dreamed up the way to control the church. 11:38 He appointed his friend, Thomas Becket, 11:41 to be archbishop of Canterbury. 11:43 And even as I saw the movie the other day 11:46 and thought again on him, I don't know how he, 11:48 he pulled that off, 11:49 because on the face of it, it was just silly. 11:53 Thomas Becket, had taken ordnance 11:55 briefly early in his life 11:57 and on that technicality he had him ordained as a priest 12:00 and confirmed as archbishop of Canterbury the same day. 12:03 And the dynamic of the story 12:06 is that once installed as archbishop, 12:08 Thomas Becket, then defended his new loyalty 12:11 rather than his old loyalty and so was the classic 12:13 confrontation of the church and state. 12:16 And, Thomas Becket, was eventually murdered 12:19 by zealous knights who took the king in his word, 12:23 when he said, "Who'll rid me of this meddling priest?" 12:26 But I thought about this as I listened to it 12:28 and in some ways the reformation 12:29 in England was the end of that story. 12:31 Because the first act that Henry VIII did 12:34 was to take control of the church properties 12:37 and of church Canon Law, 12:38 he took it under the civil authority. 12:41 And it's interesting to see you to draw those two parallels. 12:44 Yes, it's not quite analogist, but there's some similarities. 12:48 We'll be back after the break to discuss further, 12:51 the Hassan-Tabor case, before the Supreme Court 12:53 and some ramification that there might be for us today. 13:05 One-hundred years, a long time to do anything, 13:09 much less publish a magazine, but this year Liberty, 13:13 the Seventh-day Adventist voice of religious freedom, 13:16 celebrates one hundred years of doing what it does best, 13:20 collecting, analyzing, and reporting the ebb and flow 13:23 of religious expression around the world. 13:26 Issue after issue, 13:28 Liberty has taken on the tough assignments, 13:30 tracking down threats to religious freedom 13:32 and exposing the work of the devil 13:34 in every corner of the globe. 13:36 Governmental interference, personal attacks, 13:39 corporate assaults, even religious freedom issues 13:41 sequestered within the Church community itself 13:44 have been clearly and honestly exposed. 13:47 Liberty exists for one purpose 13:49 to help God's people maintain that 13:51 all important separation of Church and State, 13:54 while recognizing the dangers inherent in such a struggle. 13:58 During the past century, 13:59 Liberty has experienced challenges of its own, 14:02 but it remains on the job. 14:04 Thanks to the inspired leadership 14:06 of a long line of dedicated Adventist Editors, 14:08 three of whom represent almost half 14:10 of the publications existence 14:12 and the foresight of a little woman from New England. 14:15 One hundred years of struggle, 14:17 one hundred years of victories, 14:20 religious freedom isn't just about 14:21 political machines and cultural prejudices. 14:24 It's about people fighting for the right 14:27 to serve the God they love as their hearts 14:30 and the Holy Spirit dictate. 14:33 Thanks to the prayers and generous support 14:35 of Seventh-day Adventists everywhere. 14:37 Liberty will continue to accomplish its work 14:39 of providing timely information, 14:41 spirit filled inspiration, 14:43 and heaven sent encouragement to all who long to live 14:47 and work in a world bound together 14:49 by the God ordained bonds of religious freedom. 15:03 Welcome back to Liberty Insider 15:06 with guest, Dwayne Leslie. 15:08 Before the break with, Dwayne, 15:11 I was--we were talking about 15:12 a very important Supreme Court case 15:15 that as we're recording this is still being debated 15:18 or analyzed by the justices node the termination yet, 15:22 the Hosanna-Tabor case of ministerial exception. 15:28 Explain a little bit more on it. 15:30 We talked a lot about it, but I'm little afraid, 15:34 from what we both said 15:35 that we maybe sort of muddying the issue for our viewers. 15:38 What in its rural sense, 15:39 what are we talking about here? 15:41 Sure To be clear, 15:43 this case really governs how a church can decide 15:48 who to hire and who to fire 15:50 under what they consider to be a minister. 15:52 And so with this case is really looking at is 15:55 who falls into that minister, 15:56 because the plaintiff in case was a school teacher, 15:59 but also was deemed under the Lutheran faith 16:02 to be a commission to minister. 16:04 And she tried to claim that she was not-- 16:06 But the Lutheran church gave reasonable reasons 16:10 at least under the old or the present scenario that yes, 16:15 she has some religious functions. 16:16 She takes devotions and so on, 16:18 so we expect her to fulfill religious duties. 16:23 Right, because even though her job is primarily 16:25 to be a teacher to the children, 16:27 she did lead them in the worship. 16:29 And so, and she did have other religious functions 16:32 and so the court spent some time trying to decide, 16:35 well, how do you determine that. 16:37 And famously, I think, Justice Roberts, 16:39 asked while the Pope has secular functions 16:44 and religious functions, 16:45 so would he be deemed a minister? 16:47 Yeah. With the twinkle in his eye. 16:51 So and again if this had been a pastor 16:56 that had done the same thing, 16:58 this case wouldn't be here. 16:59 But it's how far is the exemption 17:02 and should the exemption continue to exist? 17:07 Or how far does it apply, 17:08 does it apply to sort of midlevel employees, 17:12 who do some secular and some religious-- 17:16 Now, let me throw a real wildcard at you since we, 17:19 I want to have an open discussion here. 17:23 I know on this program at least some years ago, 17:25 we've some discussion about some church schools 17:29 or church colleges anxious to get government money. 17:34 And they, to get the money 17:37 they needed to prove that they were not very religious. 17:41 So they based an argument, 17:43 that yes they were run by a church, 17:45 but they were pervasively sectarian one. 17:49 Oh, not. No, I'm not getting the right word. 17:51 Secular, secular, pervasively secular. 17:55 Well, that's not so at least 17:58 by the Seventh-day Adventist institutions 18:00 and I think most other church 18:01 run higher institutions of higher learning, 18:06 the whole point the church 18:07 gets into it is to encourage faith 18:09 and to steer people toward a religious viewpoint. 18:13 They're not neutral, they're not empty 18:15 of religious sentiment. 18:17 But to get the money, 18:18 some schools have been advancing 18:20 an argument that seems to me, 18:22 works a little against this ministerial exemption 18:27 for people that are working for the church, 18:30 that are advancing its beliefs, 18:32 but yet not formally ministers. 18:35 Right, then I, but I think again the point comes back 18:39 to is that when people have religious functions, 18:41 what we don't want to do is have the court system 18:44 determining the validity of faiths 18:49 particular religious practices, absolutely, not no. 18:52 And I under achieve but I don't think 18:54 that's gonna happen out of this case directly. 18:56 But I just have a fear that they may narrow 19:00 the determination of who is a minister. 19:06 Right and but again I don't-- but for most churches 19:10 there's a pretty clear distinction often times 19:12 between who's a minister and who's not. 19:14 Yeah. Well, and it also intersects with the debate 19:17 that is not confine to any one church. 19:19 you know, ordination of women and-- 19:21 Right, so, which we wont' even go there. 19:24 No, but again in the oral argument, 19:27 they took great pains to sort of distance 19:30 and show that this case was not about ordination of women. 19:35 Well, the mystery to me on this 19:36 and its hard to do double guess the Supreme Court 19:40 and as a lawyer I know that 19:41 people have not a good track record 19:43 on trying to double guess them, 19:44 but just think of the dynamic. 19:46 There are many issues that bubble up 19:49 through the legal system that could be taken 19:53 by the High Court, but they don't take everything. 19:56 They take things, it seems to me 19:58 from what I know less for the case at hand than 20:02 what it might represent larger issues, 20:04 so they're choosing. 20:06 So they must have a reason for this, 20:08 so what would their reason be for taking this. 20:12 The exemption has not really been seriously threatened, 20:14 so are they taking it to protect the exemption, 20:19 doesn't seem so to me. 20:21 yeah, it will be interesting to see how this comes out. 20:24 So what's in their mind? Yes. 20:26 And I think, again looking at the oral argument, 20:29 it's, there was some, there is a high degree 20:32 of skepticism in the argument that was put forth 20:34 by both the plaintiff and the government. 20:37 Because they really sort of had to control it themselves 20:39 to figure out argument that didn't run a foul 20:43 of traditional free expression of religion, 20:46 but still wanted to give the opportunity 20:49 to bring claims for employment discrimination. 20:52 By the way in this job, I've had to be careful. 20:58 I had to carefully study how lawyers present 21:00 the law or the constitution. 21:03 And I've read the transcripts 21:05 and heard some of the presentations 21:07 before the Supreme Court 21:08 and it has amazed me like you say some of the lawyers, 21:11 more brilliant individuals that I can ever hope to be, 21:15 certainly more knowledgeable in the law 21:17 that I could ever dreamed to be. 21:18 But still just on the faces of it, 21:20 here are some of the arguments, 21:21 they're fantastical, right, convoluted reasoning. 21:24 And the justices are very good at, 21:26 particularly what interest me as a lawyer 21:29 is the hypotheticals that they give 21:31 and again asking about the Pope 21:33 and how the-would the Pope be considered a minister. 21:35 That's a good way to highlight 21:37 some of the flaws in argument. 21:39 Well, this is, it's out of context a bit, 21:42 but it's a good time for me to bring it up, 21:44 because this is pertinent to our discussion generally. 21:47 I listen to one fairly recent Supreme Court case 21:53 with oral argument and I could not believe it. 21:56 When I heard the Justice's bounce among themselves 21:59 for maybe ten minutes about how appropriate 22:03 it was for the government to build 22:05 a religious structure for a certain religion. 22:08 And they got to joking about it. 22:10 It was so lighthearted 22:11 that it was actually a little ominous to me. 22:13 But they came to the joint decision that as along, 22:17 if the government built, 22:19 I forget which church they settled on, 22:21 but they named cathedral or something, 22:23 if they build one cathedral, 22:25 as long as they then build them 22:26 for anybody that wanted it, things were hunky-dory. 22:31 I know, you are as perplexed as I am, 22:32 because on the face of it 22:33 that was against the establishment code absolutely. 22:36 But they seem to, I can't say that all, 22:40 none of them went with it, but there was no counter voice 22:43 and it bounced around at least 22:44 four or five of them loved the idea. 22:47 So they thought as long as they're even handed about that 22:49 the government could build churches. 22:52 And so I wonder really what thinking is developing 22:56 in our highest judiciary like that. 22:59 Well, there's a whole body of law, 23:00 maybe that's another show 23:01 with you know religious land use. 23:04 But now that's why I think there is a so much attention 23:07 being paid to this case, 23:08 because there is a high degree of scrutiny, 23:11 judging from the questions, 23:12 it's really hard to say and so would it be curious. 23:14 Well, we-we've now placed two articles 23:17 in Liberty Magazine on this topic 23:18 and I expect the third when the case comes down, 23:20 because I agree with you. 23:22 I think this is in my judgment 23:25 just as an observer in the last 13 years, 23:27 it's the most important Supreme Court case 23:29 relating to religion that I've seen. 23:32 It may turn out to be a non event 23:34 if they judge it in a moral way. 23:36 they could judge it very narrowly. 23:38 But there is a lot of stake here, right. 23:41 I mean there has been some other important, 23:42 ones like the challenge brought by an antireligious group, 23:46 the Freedom From Religion Foundation, 23:47 against the government's faith based initiative. 23:50 I thought that was a huge case, 23:52 but it ended up as nothing, because the Supreme Court, 23:54 as they've so often done likely said, 23:56 well, they have no standing. 23:59 This was a group speaking on behalf of people, 24:01 but they needed the case of somebody 24:03 who would have really been impacted by this. 24:06 And as a net result I think they took off. 24:09 I hope it's not true, but my reading of that case 24:11 was that in essence citizens can't easily challenge 24:16 any action of the state crossing the line 24:20 of separation of church and state. 24:22 You just, it's not your business anymore. 24:25 Because it, because from standing. 24:27 Yes, I think they took it off the table. 24:30 Well, I'll go back to what narrowly they said, 24:34 because this came out of the, White House, 24:37 because it was done on the government 24:38 appropriation not by statute. 24:41 And you're just the citizen who and not, 24:44 you can't prove that you were impacted by, 24:46 you know, you can't say anything. 24:49 It was a very odd sort of a logic, 24:51 but they clearly as you know dismissed it 24:53 because of lack of standing and no one much worried, 24:57 because there is not great sympathy 25:00 to a group that are opposed to all religion. 25:03 Right, The Freedom From Religion Foundation 25:05 and I think even lot of secular 25:07 so a little squeamish about a group that just wants 25:09 to drive religion out of every nook and cranny in society. 25:13 Right and could said there's not necessarily 25:14 lot of support for that, no. 25:17 Even among people who want 25:18 separation of church and state 25:19 but they don't want freedom from all religion. 25:22 Yeah, so we're getting down to the final minutes. 25:28 I'd certainly we can encourage our viewers 25:30 to pay attention to this that there are issues 25:33 that bubble up from time to time 25:35 that have great ramifications. 25:37 They should be studying the news to see where this goes. 25:39 They should recognize that a church has a legitimate right 25:43 to protect the integrity of its ministerial force 25:46 as well as those that work for it really in any environment 25:49 you don't really want the janitor 25:54 at the church school to be, 25:56 you know, a Satanist for example. 25:59 Thankfully, lot of them but-- 26:00 So the church has legitimate things were it might be, 26:05 on other roles outside in the secular environment 26:08 might be acting somewhat prejudicially but its, 26:10 it want the integrity of mission 26:13 to be worked out through its workforce. 26:15 Right and I think that 26:17 and again like we mentioned early on. 26:19 There is a certain tension that comes 26:21 in these kinds of cases because on the one hand 26:25 again you have the religious application issue. 26:29 But then, you, the government say we don't want 26:32 to allow discrimination in hiring decisions. 26:35 But ultimately if you've to air on that side, 26:38 I think you really have to air on that side 26:39 of protecting religion and religious institutions 26:43 that have a right to hire and fire people in accordance 26:47 with there own religious principles 26:48 and that's what important. 26:51 It's amazing to study throughout history 26:54 and see how often the debates between church 26:57 and state where over 26:59 who had the purgative to administer laws? 27:03 Liberty Magazine and this program argues 27:05 for the separation of church of state. 27:07 But that separation was not easily gained. 27:10 It once was that the church told the state, 27:13 had to administer even civil laws. 27:16 Then once was in England particularly a time 27:19 when the civil powers tried to say to the church powers 27:23 that you must answer for civil errors. 27:28 Henry II, tried that with Thomas Becket 27:31 and the result was a matter to the cause 27:33 and the man sainted by the Catholic Church 27:36 and it remained until the Protestant Reformation 27:39 and the Henry VIII, for fully control 27:42 of religious entities by the state. 27:44 In a small way the Hosanna-Tabor case presently 27:47 before the Supreme Court is re-fighting that issue. 27:51 Is there an exemption for the church, 27:56 an exemption for spiritual matters certainly, 27:58 but is there an exemption from civil responsibility. 28:01 Time will tell and the Supreme Court will say. 28:05 For Liberty Insider this is Lincoln Steed. |
Revised 2014-12-17