# Is O'Rourke deliberately sabotaging the Dems? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [October 11, 2019, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-orourke-deliberately-sabotaging-the-dems/841637 "2019-10-11T16:33:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-orourke-deliberately-sabotaging-the-dems/841637/101 "2019-10-14T03:34:03Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > So, after the replies in this thread and the Slate quote, do you now agree that attacking the Democrats in general, when pointing out desperate attempts by O’Rourke to get attention, are done in bad faith? I think they are. No, I don’t think his views are _universal_ among Democrats, but I think they’re met with widespread acceptance / support within his party. The audience cheered after he announced his intention to revoke the tax-exempt status of traditional Christian (and other) churches. When he was ranting about taking people’s AR-15s, he wasn’t met with boos and hisses, but (metaphorical) nods of agreement and atta-boys. ---
**Author:** ![Defensive\_Indifference](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/defensive_indifference/32/6502_2.png) [@Defensive\_Indifference](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Defensive_Indifference)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-orourke-deliberately-sabotaging-the-dems/841637/102 "2019-10-14T04:11:55Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > No, I don’t think his views are _universal_ among Democrats, but I think they’re met with widespread acceptance / support within his party. The audience cheered after he announced his intention to revoke the tax-exempt status of traditional Christian (and other) churches. When he was ranting about taking people’s AR-15s, he wasn’t met with boos and hisses, but (metaphorical) nods of agreement and atta-boys. He’s polling at 3%. Upon what do you base your opinion that his views enjoy widespread support? ---
**Author:** ![DirkHardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/6a8cbe/32.png) [@DirkHardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DirkHardly)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-orourke-deliberately-sabotaging-the-dems/841637/103 "2019-10-14T04:41:02Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I read it. I think the court would be extremely reluctant to impose any kind of tax on religious institutions. But that’s not the question, or the assertion. My assertion is that nothing in the constitution precludes taxing religious institutions, generally. The 501(c)(3) tax provision is a creation of Congress. Congress could repeal it. The IRS needs to make a determination as to the bona fides of a church before granting tax exempt status, though historically it offers a lot of deference. Essentially you concede my point - that the issue has never come before the court, and as a result the default would be that Congress could act in this space. > > As to increased entanglement - as you say it’s a matter of degree. My contention is that religious institutions could get no special treatment with regard to taxes and I don’t think that is prohibited by the constitution or any holding of SCOTUS. We already know how to levy sales taxes, property taxes, etc. Treating these entities the same as we do others doesn’t strike me as excessive entanglement, though I grant it is increased. Right now I think religious institutions get favorable treatment. Ignoring the religious status of any institution would be closer to being truly neutral - neither preventing the free exercise, nor establishing. Just make government blind to the religious status and I don’t think that would be prohibited constitutionally, as a thought exercise at least. > > You are the one making the assertion, while at the same time acknowledging that there is no case on point. The status quo would be, maybe, maybe not. But you’re going further and saying - not. Not sure why you seem so incredulous about the idea that reasonable people can disagree when the matter has not been settled, ever. It likely won’t be, so we may just have to agree to disagree. First of all, just to get this out of the way, show me at any point where I stated definitively that such a law would be declared unconstitutional. I have repeatedly and consistently said that it would most likely be struck down and have cited numerous reasons why. I’ve cited actual quotes from the Court and other relevant Constitutional principles used by that same Court. You on the other hand have provided no relevant legal cites and instead offer your personal opinion on the issue instead of offering up what the actual Court which would decide the issue has said. In fact, you seem to have a limited grasp of all these issues so I’ll quickly run them down as a list to save time. 1. How can you say nothing in the Constitution prohibits taxing religious institutions when you admit that the law is ultimately unsettled on the point? The Constitution, in the context of Constitutional Law, is not limited to the four corners of the document but includes the entire case law as well. So far the only thing you can say is the Constitution says nothing directly on the issue either way. However, it says quite a bit indirectly and those are all the things I’ve already cited. 2. So the exemption is a statutory creation. So what? So is the tax. How do you know that the tax wouldn’t have been struck down had it not contained such an exemption in the first place or if that exemption was ever removed? 3. When you say that the issue has never come before the Court and that “the default is Congress could act in this space” you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how our legal system works. Congress can always “act in this space” regardless. This isn’t an issue of preemption. Congress can always “act” to pass any law it wants, even a blatantly unconstitutional one. Whether or not the courts have weighed in on the issue is ultimately irrelevant in that sense. So no, I did not concede your point because you have in fact made no point. 4. The only assertion I have made is that it is far more likely such a law would be struck down than not and I have provided actual legal cites and pointed to Constitutional doctrines that support this conclusion. You on the other hand have offered only your personal opinions, no relevant legal cites, and some arguments based on poor logic. And somehow based on all that you seem to believe that a change in the status quo is as likely or more likely than the continuation of the status quo that has existed for pretty much the entire history of the country. 5. I am not so much incredulous that reasonable people can disagree, especially generally speaking about an issue where the final authority has not yet spoken. But the fact that the Court has not yet spoken on the issue does not mean all outcomes are equally probable or that we have no present insight into what form the most likely outcome would take. So I’m more incredulous when one side has presented actual evidence that their side is more likely correct and the other side has presented no such evidence and yet inexplicably still sees the situation as the kind of equal-footing or impasse scenario that lends itself to an “agree to disagree” outcome. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-orourke-deliberately-sabotaging-the-dems/841637/104 "2019-10-14T04:46:18Z")
> [@DirkHardly](#): > > In what context have you even heard the issue raised or discussed? Since the issue has never been before the Court what scholarly discussions of the issue have you actually encountered? Law journal article? Treatise? > > Me, I did what lawyers, legal scholars, and judges do all the time in such cases when having no clear precedent to follow - extrapolate from dicta, holdings of analogus cases, and known Constitutional principles. So which of those did you use beyond “I’ve never heard of it” that convinces you Bone is correct? The thing is, I have read lots of lawyers give theories about how certain rights can be inferred. Yours rings rather hollow. I’m sure you don’t care but I just don’t get the feeling you are enough of a legal scholar to make such a reaching pronouncement. ---
**Author:** ![DirkHardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/6a8cbe/32.png) [@DirkHardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DirkHardly)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-orourke-deliberately-sabotaging-the-dems/841637/105 "2019-10-14T05:18:52Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > The thing is, I have read lots of lawyers give theories about how certain rights can be inferred. Yours rings rather hollow. I’m sure you don’t care but I just don’t get the feeling you are enough of a legal scholar to make such a reaching pronouncement. We are not dealing with an inferred right. We are dealing with the explicit rights granted under the Free Exercise/Establishment Clause. That is far from an insignificant distinction. And what parts of my arguments ring hollow? The direct and immenintly relevant quotes from SCOTUS? The references to the relevant Constitutional doctrines? I could easily add a lot more but at some point it would overwhelm the original topic of the thread. So instead of me writing several pages minimum on this complex topic why don’t you find a single legal cite which seems to contradict anything I’ve said and we can move past this general sense some of you have that I’m wrong but somehow you just can’t articulate why exactly. I mean Bone tried to at least make a specific argument as to why I was wrong. It lacked any sort of cite to legal authority and relied on poor logic but it was something concrete at least. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-orourke-deliberately-sabotaging-the-dems/841637/106 "2019-10-14T05:59:47Z")
> [@Defensive\_Indifference](#): > > He’s polling at 3%. Upon what do you base your opinion that his views enjoy widespread support? I gave you a couple of data points already: the reactions of the crowds and other candidates when he said them. Others have posted polls about dem support for taking people’s ARs. I’d be a bit surprised if someone has actually run a poll about dems revoking churches’ tax exempt status. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-orourke-deliberately-sabotaging-the-dems/841637/107 "2019-10-14T12:26:32Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > No, I’m sure you could. You just make the litmus test be the percentage of your activities/spending that are actually charitable work, like every organization that isn’t a church. If 80% of your business is giving speeches on the weekend, not tax exempt. I don’t think you could. In the sense that you couldn’t say “this organization doesn’t get tax exemption because 80% of its spending is a speech on weekends about religious matters, but a different organization that only gives a play or an opera or a lecture on weekends but not on religious subjects gets the exemption”. Because that is discrimination against the first organization. **Bone** ’s proposal of eliminating the tax exemption for all non-profits doesn’t even depend on any definition of actual vs. non-actual charitable work. If every non-profit organization is subject to tax, that is one thing. Picking out one organization and giving it tax-exemption but not any other, based on whether or not they are religious, is another. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I’d be a bit surprised if someone has actually run a poll about dems revoking churches’ tax exempt status I have no doubt that such a poll would find more support among progressives and atheists and the SDMB. Among the general electorate, it is pretty much a non-starter. Which probably explains why Beto is at 3% and is likely to remain there until he drops out. Beto is pretty badly out of touch with the mainstream, as are most of the extreme elements of both parties (although the extremists on the right are trumpeted as representative of the GOP on the SDMB and among the progressives). If nut-picking is fair game for one side, it is fair game for both. Except when the other side does it. Then it is totally unfair. 😉 Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Defensive\_Indifference](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/defensive_indifference/32/6502_2.png) [@Defensive\_Indifference](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Defensive_Indifference)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-orourke-deliberately-sabotaging-the-dems/841637/108 "2019-10-14T12:57:53Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I gave you a couple of data points already: the reactions of the crowds and other candidates when he said them. Others have posted polls about dem support for taking people’s ARs. I’d be a bit surprised if someone has actually run a poll about dems revoking churches’ tax exempt status. A crowd of a few thousand out of a nation of 300+ million; other candidates’ lack of immediate condemnation; polls on an issue unrelated to you OP; and a lack of data about the actual topic of your OP. These “data points” lead you to believe there is “widespread support” for making tax exempt status contingent on churches espousing certain doctrine. That about sum up your argument? ---
**Author:** ![Annoyed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f04885/32.png) [@Annoyed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annoyed)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-orourke-deliberately-sabotaging-the-dems/841637/109 "2019-10-14T13:05:08Z")
> [@Defensive\_Indifference](#): > > A crowd of a few thousand out of a nation of 300+ million; other candidates’ lack of immediate condemnation; polls on an issue unrelated to you OP; and a lack of data about the actual topic of your OP. These “data points” lead you to believe there is “widespread support” for making tax exempt status contingent on churches espousing certain doctrine. > > That about sum up your argument? The party has made no statements to separate themselves from his extremist positions. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-orourke-deliberately-sabotaging-the-dems/841637/110 "2019-10-14T13:07:50Z")
Hey OP, forget electoral politics here. There are some churches out there that are clearly outright scams, like donations being used to pay for a fleet of private jets instead of doing good works. Do you think these sorts of churches should enjoy tax exempt status? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-orourke-deliberately-sabotaging-the-dems/841637/111 "2019-10-14T13:29:18Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > It’s also possible that Beto isn’t even thinking strategically or anything, and is instead simply an honest politician with no brain-to-mouth filter, blurting out what he is honestly thinking. I rather doubt the OP theory that Beto is intentionally sabotaging the D’s. I think Beto is simply saying out loud what he feels - and it happens to be what a significant swath of D’s feel. There are indeed a good chunk of D’s who want assault rifles confiscated, want churches taxed, and Beto is simply beating to the same drummer as they. Yeah, he’s been in the secret meetings and knows our secret agenda and is now spilling the beans. Trump was popular among republicans because he was just saying what they were all thinking, right? Now, I consider that remark to be a bit unfair, but he was actually nominated and elected. When Beto wins the presidency, or at least the nomination, then you can justify your broad brush smears. > [@Ravenman](#): > > Hey OP, forget electoral politics here. There are some churches out there that are clearly outright scams, like donations being used to pay for a fleet of private jets instead of doing good works. Do you think these sorts of churches should enjoy tax exempt status? You clearly are not versed in prosperity gospel. He has to have a jet in order to spread his good works to his [del]marks[/del] flock. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-orourke-deliberately-sabotaging-the-dems/841637/112 "2019-10-14T13:41:28Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > **Bone** ’s proposal of eliminating the tax exemption for all non-profits doesn’t even depend on any definition of actual vs. non-actual charitable work. If every non-profit organization is subject to tax, that is one thing. Picking out one organization and giving it tax-exemption but not any other, based on whether or not they are religious, is another. I didn’t suggest that. I said you could make a functional test to decide what gets charitable status. We already do that for non-churches. Yes, if we allowed Tony Robbins speeches to be tax exempt, there would be no good reason to not let Sunday sermons be tax exempt as well. So as a society we can decide, “is earning money for giving motivational speeches a charity?” or we could decide “is the money being spent to benefit society”. Churches would still be charities if they did good work. I think only the most hardcore would disagree with that. ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-orourke-deliberately-sabotaging-the-dems/841637/113 "2019-10-14T14:07:41Z")
> [@DirkHardly](#): > > First of all, just to get this out of the way, show me at any point where I stated definitively that such a law would be declared unconstitutional. I have repeatedly and consistently said that it would most likely be struck down > [@DirkHardly](#): > > So we have O’Rourke suggesting a blatant violation of Equal Protection, Free Speech and almost certainly Free Exercise, Sanders advocating for the abolition of Corporate Personhood, and Warren proposing that Congress can extend its oversight of Federal judges to the Supreme Court. The first is ridiculously unconstitutional, “Ridiculously unconstitutional” fits quite nicely with “would be declared unconstitutional,” and not so well with “would most likely be struck down.” You can’t use absolutes in your rhetoric and then expect others to believe that you believe things are unsettled. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-orourke-deliberately-sabotaging-the-dems/841637/114 "2019-10-14T14:30:20Z")
> [@DirkHardly](#): > > We are not dealing with an inferred right. We are dealing with the explicit rights granted under the Free Exercise/Establishment Clause. That is far from an insignificant distinction. You are inferring that their tax exempt status flows directly from that right. The Constitution could have explicitly included that if they wanted it to be explicit. But it doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-orourke-deliberately-sabotaging-the-dems/841637/115 "2019-10-14T14:30:23Z")
> [@DirkHardly](#): > > First of all, just to get this out of the way, show me at any point where I stated definitively that such a law would be declared unconstitutional. Sure. My bold below: > [@DirkHardly](#): > > While O’Rourke’s specific proposal is one of the most blatantly unconstitutional ideas I’ve heard advanced by a politician on the national stage in quite a while **even taxing religious institutions in general would almost certainly run afoul of the Free Exercise Clause.** Now, if you want to find daylight in between “definitively” and “almost certainly” I suppose you could do that. But here’s the thing, I’m not understanding why you seem to be so combative. People disagree, and you start right in questioning their knowledge, expertise, capacity for legal analysis, aspersions about one’s profession, etc. It’s pretty off putting. Like this: > [@DirkHardly](#): > > In fact, you seem to have a limited grasp of all these issues so I’ll quickly run them down as a list to save time. Like, why do you do that? > [@](#): > > I’ve cited actual quotes from the Court and other relevant Constitutional principles used by that same Court. You on the other hand have provided no relevant legal cites and instead offer your personal opinion on the issue instead of offering up what the actual Court which would decide the issue has said. You cited a single case, Walz, and then threw in references to free exercise and establishment. Do you consider saying those phrases sufficient to support anything you’re saying? The holding in Walz wasn’t on point so you’re relying on dicta which is fairly thin. Simply mentioning free exercise and establishment goes absolutely no where because as you note, these general principles must be taken into context with the rest of relevant case law. You make it seem as if you’ve presented a cache of strong evidence, but really, one case and not even in the holding. That’s weak tea. > [@](#): > > 1. How can you say nothing in the Constitution prohibits taxing religious institutions when you admit that the law is ultimately unsettled on the point? The Constitution, in the context of Constitutional Law, is not limited to the four corners of the document but includes the entire case law as well. So far the only thing you can say is the Constitution says nothing directly on the issue either way. However, it says quite a bit indirectly and those are all the things I’ve already cited. Again, you’re conceding my point. The “Constitution saying nothing directly on the issue either way” is functionally equivalent (on the parts that are relevant) to saying “there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits taxing religious institutions”. It’s silent on the matter. In other words, there is nothing there that prohibits it. Perhaps it can be interpreted that way, but there is nothing currently that would require that conclusion. > [@](#): > > 1. The only assertion I have made is that it is far more likely such a law would be struck down than not and I have provided actual legal cites and pointed to Constitutional doctrines that support this conclusion. You on the other hand have offered only your personal opinions, no relevant legal cites, and some arguments based on poor logic. And somehow based on all that you seem to believe that a change in the status quo is as likely or more likely than the continuation of the status quo that has existed for pretty much the entire history of the country. You think I’m making an evaluation as to the likelihood? I’m not. This is a thought exercise mainly. But to the extent we are talking about likelihood, this is what I said: > [@Bone](#): > > Yes it’s always been this way, and the chances of that ever happening are virtually nil, but the action of not exempting religious institutions is not foreclosed by the constitution. Virtually nil. How do you get from virtually nil to a change in the status quo as likely or more than likely? In any case, the point of the free exercise and establishment clauses is to establish a sort of neutrality towards religion. Neither favored, nor inhibited. Making the government blind to religious status at all, is consistent with the idea against any form of special treatment. Allowing religious institutions to be exempt from taxes by default favors them in a way that other institutions are not so favored. As you note, it is a matter of degree. Because of this, my assertion is that the constitution would not prohibit an elimination of tax exempt status for all entities. Singling out churches would be a non-starter. But if the entirety of the non profit tax scheme were to be eliminated, this is an available, yet highly remote possibility and would not be in conflict with the constitution. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-orourke-deliberately-sabotaging-the-dems/841637/116 "2019-10-14T14:42:54Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Hey OP, forget electoral politics here. There are some churches out there that are clearly outright scams, like donations being used to pay for a fleet of private jets instead of doing good works. Do you think these sorts of churches should enjoy tax exempt status? Probably not, but I have rather low confidence in the government’s ability to distinguish between good and bad churches without letting partisan motives slip in. I certainly wouldn’t trust someone like O’Rourke to make that distinction. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-orourke-deliberately-sabotaging-the-dems/841637/117 "2019-10-14T15:16:27Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > But here’s the thing, I’m not understanding why you seem to be so combative. People disagree, and you start right in questioning their knowledge, expertise, capacity for legal analysis, aspersions about one’s profession, etc. It’s pretty off putting. Like this: > > Like, why do you do that? Yup. Way I figure it, he may be entitled to argue that way. But he’s not entitled to a response from me if that’s how he tries to engage folks. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-orourke-deliberately-sabotaging-the-dems/841637/118 "2019-10-14T15:20:20Z")
> [@Annoyed](#): > > The party has made no statements to separate themselves from his extremist positions. “The Party” generally doesn’t make statements along those lines. (and I should just add, his positions may not be to your liking, but they hardly qualified as “extremist.”) ---
**Author:** ![DirkHardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/6a8cbe/32.png) [@DirkHardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DirkHardly)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-orourke-deliberately-sabotaging-the-dems/841637/119 "2019-10-14T15:20:36Z")
> [@Eonwe](#): > > “Ridiculously unconstitutional” fits quite nicely with “would be declared unconstitutional,” and not so well with “would most likely be struck down.” > > You can’t use absolutes in your rhetoric and then expect others to believe that you believe things are unsettled. No, what’s happening here is you haven’t read carefully and are conflating different statements I made about two separate legal issues. I referred to O’Rourke’s proposal as “ridiculously unconstitutional” because it is. There is absolutely no real question about that. What I referred to as “most likely to be struck down” was a law that removed the exemption for religious institutions and allowed them to be taxed like any other entity as far as property and income. Two different fact patterns, two different outcomes. Imagine that. ---
**Author:** ![Annoyed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f04885/32.png) [@Annoyed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annoyed)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-orourke-deliberately-sabotaging-the-dems/841637/120 "2019-10-14T15:40:52Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > “The Party” generally doesn’t make statements along those lines. (and I should just add, his positions may not be to your liking, but they hardly qualified as “extremist.”) Cool then. Go with those since they aren’t extremist at all and would definitely be a winner. You know, because not extremist. And not a single Dem bobble head has said a damn thing of note against Beto’s “not extremist” positions. They let them all hang out there in the open easily tied to the party. Buttigeg said some weak shit but only because he’s been trying to win christian votes by being the good gay Christian. Or whatever weird angle he’s been trying to run. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-orourke-deliberately-sabotaging-the-dems/841637.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-orourke-deliberately-sabotaging-the-dems/841637.md?page=7)