In Phoenix, Arizona earlier this month, a federal judge,

ordered the city not to enforce its noise ordinance against “sound generated in the course of religious expression.” It was a temporary injunction issued by the judge in a lawsuit filed against the city by some churches challenging the city’s enforcement of noise restrictions on church bells.

So here is my question…are we then free to smoke marijuana as part of our religious expression? Sure, you’re going to say, “that’s ridiculous–smoking pot is a crime.” Well yeah, but so is disturbing the peace. And when we scrutinize the two more closely, loud, piercing church bells are far more likely to harm bystanders than one smoking a joint in one’s own castle.

Here is the rub: back in 2006, in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, the SCOTUS ruled that a New Mexican branch of the Brazilian church União do Vegetal (UDV) was allowed to violate the controlled substances act by using a sacramental tea containing a Schedule I substance. Note that Native Americans are also given exceptions to use peyote, another Schedule I substance.

So what’s the next exception to the rule of law that we can expect? Is it possible to conceive a Supreme Court radical enough to overlook something as heinous as animal or, heaven forbid, human sacrifice? Based on the current precedent, whose rights trump all others and at what price?

The answer: vote anybody but the top two names.  More precisely, vote anybody but a democrat or a republican.  Both parties are equally responsible for the state of the country today.  Both make hollow promises that are rarely kept, and both practice the same brand of corporatism that favors big money over the electorate.  Vote third party, vote for the independent, write in a name…whatever it takes to ensure that we put the “professional” politicians out of work for a few years.  Nobody knows better how to game the system than the professionals.  That’s why we need ameratuers who care more about affecting real change than blowing smoke.

All it takes is a disciplined electorate who is willing to shake off years of brainwashing such as “If I vote third party, my vote will be wasted” or “If I vote for the independent, my party will never forgive me.”  Talk like this will only serve to keep the same bad elements in power.  It is time that we flexed our political muscle and brought in some fresh faces.

If the Constitution mandates that there be three, co-equal branches of government, is it a fair legal argument to claim the filibuster illegal on the grounds that it (the legislative branch) requires a stricter test (3/5ths vote to end debate) to get anything done than the other two branches (both of which rely upon a simple majority for all decisions)?