March 12th, 2021 -KMHQ
In honor of the month of love, we thought we would enlighten those of you with interest about the love of our beloved sacred manna of the fountain of living waters and it's recent successful recognition by the US Federal court... because of love and devotion. The case is known as "New Hampshire v. Mack "
The Supreme Court’s new ruling held that, when any government action burdens an individual’s sincere religious exercise, that action must satisfy a judicial test known as “strict scrutiny,” the most rigorous standard for judicial review. This means that the government action must be “narrowly tailored” to “achieve a compelling government interest”—a test that is not easy for the government to pass.
The Date of the US Supreme Courts opinion/decision is December 22, 2020, the Docket Number: 2019-0171, and here is the official Justia Opinion Summary:
"Defendant Jeremy Mack was convicted by jury on one count of possession of a controlled drug: psilocyn and/or psilocybin (which he possessed in the form of mushrooms).
On appeal, defendant argued that, because Part I, Article 5 of the New Hampshire Constitution protected his right to possess and use mushrooms as part of his religious worship, so long as he did not “disturb the public peace,” the trial court erred by denying his pre-trial motion to dismiss. This appeal required the New Hampshire Supreme Court to interpret Part I, Article 5 and interpretation of the phrase "disturb the public peace."
The Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not apply the compelling interest balancing test that Part I, Article 5 required. "Nor, understandably, did it make the factual findings necessary to determine whether, under the test, the defendant’s possession and sacramental use of psilocyn and/or psilocybin mushrooms are protected under Part I, Article 5." The trial court'd order was vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings."
Justice Bassett noted that New Hampshire’s own cases agree with this statement, quoting a 1983 decision in which the state Supreme Court aptly observed that, in the United States, “We do not have unqualified majority rule; we have majority rule with protection for minority and individual rights. Without this limitation we would have a tyranny of the majority and we would lose our liberty.”
Comments