I get the feeling I’m just being trolled here, but game on…
I love 5-meo, and don’t have any issues with tesseracting into the many worlds of DMT.
Just tough to justify RFRA, when the goal is not being upheld by sincerely held religious beliefs.
As a theological major, sovereign co-creator, All My Entheogenic Experiences are spiritual … back to Neter. Under RFRA, a qualifier is an individual or organization that can show a government action has “substantially burdened” their sincerely held religious belief and that the government lacks a “compelling interest” and the least restrictive means to justify the burden.
Substantial burden: The government action must place a substantial burden on the exercise of their sincerely held religious belief. The belief does not need to be “central” to their religion, and the government cannot second-guess the reasonableness of a religious person’s belief.
Compelling government interest: The government must prove it has a compelling interest in applying the law to the person in that specific way.
Least restrictive means: The government must show that the law or action taken is the least restrictive way to achieve its compelling interest.
Unless you have certifiable knowledge of the law, make your case publicly known and OverStand the compelled interest to contract with policy enforcers and other arbitrations of your civil liberties… By being a beligerent claimant of ones rights… you will forfeit them under tacit agreement…
Buchanan v. Warley, 245 US 60 (1917)
“The police power ofthe state must be exercised in subordination to the provisions ofthe U.S. Constitution.”
Boyd v. United States, 116 US 616
“It is the duty ofthe courts to be watchful for the Constitutional rights of the citizen and against any stealthy encroachments thereon.”
Byars v. U.S., 273 U.S. 28, 32 (1927)
Constitutional provisions to be liberally construed, and “it is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon.”
Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540
“With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be over- thrown or impaired by any state police authority.”
Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906)
“We are ofthe opinion that there’s a clear distinction . .. between an individual and a corporation… The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State… He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law ofthe land long antecedent to the organization ofthe State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution.”
Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516
“The state cannot diminish Rights ofthe people.” Due process of law is process of law according to the law ofthe land, i.e. the U.S. Constitution as exercised within the limits prescribed and interpreted according to the principles of common law.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137
Constitution is the Supreme Law ofthe land. Any law in conflict is null and void.
Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d 486, 489
“The claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime.”
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them.”
Sherbert v. Vemer, 374, U.S. 398 (1963)
FirstAmendment case, U.S. Supreme Ct. overturned South Carolina Supreme Court. The court created the Sherbert Test to determine whether government acts infringe upon religious freedoms. Of note: “compelling interest” and “narrowly tailored” are key requirements for strict scrutiny -to be applied where a law may be infringing on individual freedoms.
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262
“If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and charge a fee for it, you can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right with impunity.”
Simmons v. United States, 390 US 389
“We find it intolerable that one Constitutional Right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another.”
Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F.2d 945
“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights.”
US v. Bishop, 412 US 346
Regarding criminal elements required to be proven - willfulness is one ofthe major elements defined as an “evil motive or intent to avoid a known duty…under the law”.
In essence:
The U. S. Supreme Court needs to grant any similar petition because the State’s, through its rulemaking and enforcement bodies, has been and continues to be engaged in the usurpation of Constitutionally-protected rights “under color of law.” Petitioners also believe that, under the guise of regulation, and using simulated legal process, the State has used terms of art or words of art and other “legalese” to deceive and prosecute individuals similarly situated under Statutes that violate every citizen’s inalienable rights that are protected by the United States Constitution.
plenty of excess offset laying around.
.