But you know you yourself have no such expertise don’t you? So what does it matter what expertise I have in that sense? You don’t know enough to know whether I’m wrong or not or offer any cogent legal rebuttal.
But regardless I didn’t rest on bare assertions did I? I explained how Warren’s proposal includes Congress potentially exerting control over a Constitutionally co-equal branch didn’t I? And with O’Rourke’s proposal I cited Due Process/Equal Protection, Free Exercise and Free Speech/viewpoint discrimination as clear Constitutional issues as well as the problems of meeting strict scrutiny. How’s that for basic legal knowledge? And if that doesn’t qualify as basic legal knowledge how far below that do your contributions fall?
So you didn’t address any of the actual legal points I made, let alone rebut them, and instead pretend I didn’t make them. I can certainly expand on my arguments with all the legal cites you want but do you really need it explained to you how taxing a church based on its doctrine/viewpoints raises a lot of Constitutional red flags? Doesn’t framing Warren’s proposal as one branch exerting control over a co-equal branch give you a basic idea of what the Constitutional issues would be?
As for Sanders suffice it to say that there are very good and complex reasons why Corporate Personhood has existed for centuries and predates the US by a good while. If you can’t comprehend how denying Corporations the right to say Equal Protection or Due Process, as an example, would have monumental legal, economic, and social repercussions then you need to look harder. And the caveat that such rights would still reside with the individual as some sort of saving grace shows a massive misunderstanding of how these things work.
I don’t think O’Rourke is deliberately sabotaging. He’s doing what losing primary candidates do, which is to say attention-getting stuff to get back on the stage.
I absolutely think Tulsi Gabbard is deliberately trying to sabotage the Dems, though.
Are you actually disagreeing with me? I can’t tell. Walz stood for the idea that it was permissible to allow churches to be tax exempt. I’m saying that it would not be unconstitutional to eliminate tax exempt status en toto, including for religious institutions. There is nothing in the constitution or any holding that says that churches must be exempt from say, property taxes.
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.
I don’t think this is accurate either. Congress can clearly assert authority over the Supreme Court. One obvious way is by changing its size. Another may be by altering its budget.
There is already precedent for taxing churches when they engage in political activity outside of religious exercise. See Johnson Amendment. I just don’t think the issue is as cut and dry as you make it seem. Sure there are norms that are in place, but there are also counter examples as well.
No. Neither King nor Duke are running for president. And they’ve not been the subject of fawning coverage and enthusiastic support like Beto was in 2018.
I’m not sure of your choice of adjectives. He was supported in the senate race because he was against a republican. To say it was fawning and enthusiastic to anyone outside of that race is solely your own opinion. The republicans supported Roy Moore in his bid for a senate seat. I would only describe it as fawning and enthusiastic support for that pedophile if I wanted to smear the republican party as supporting his values.
As far as “running for president”, that would only be something that would be relevant if he had any chance of securing the nomination. Which he does not. The reason that he does not is because most democratic voters do not agree with his platform.
It takes quite a bit of motivated reaching in order to look at someone who at best polls at 3%, and claim that that person embodies the policies of those who are actively rejecting him.
This. He knows he isn’t going to be President, so he is positioning himself for whatever the next phase in his political career is. I assume he’s trying to endear himself to the Democratic base. He’s either going to run for governor or Senator next time around, or if Trump wins again he’s trying to stand out from the crowd of also-rans to raise his credibility for 2024.
In the meantime, he IS staking out positions that will give Republicans lots of red meat and ammunition for the election campaign.
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.
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.
Aren’t you a teacher? So you do understand the concept of both higher education and advanced study as well as the concept of specialization within a field correct? I mean you’ve seen how they don’t just let anyone teach without the proper credentials right? And how teachers specialize and the Science teacher teaches Science and so on?
So once again, knowing that you are not only not an attorney or legal scholar, let alone one specializing in Constitutional Law, on what basis exactly are you expressing skepticism about anything whatsoever I’ve said? Gut feeling? Reasons? I invited you to provide cites to actually disprove any of my conclusions and you’ve completely failed to do so. So what exactly do you have left? Apparently the “okay buddy” version of “nothing.”
I agree that a good chunk of Americans (56% of Democrats and 25% of Republicans, as of 2018*) want assault rifles banned, but can you cite that a good chunk of D’s want churches taxed? Especially just some churches, depending on their views?
@DirkHardly
I don’t know about LHOD, but you are the first person I have ever heard suggest that a tax exemption for churches is Constitutionally mandated. I’m with Bone. This sounds like some inaccurate stuff.
Looking at the full exchange
"Don Lemon: Do you think religious institutions like colleges, churches, charities—should they lose their tax-exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage?
Beto O’Rourke: Yes. There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break, for anyone, any institution, any organization in America, that denies the full human rights, that denies the full civil rights, of everyone in America. So as president, we’re going to make that a priority. And we are going to stop those who are infringing upon the human rights of our fellow Americans. "
It seems to me there’s quite a lot of space between “oppose” and “deny”
And I think he’s right, if you DENY, (as in, break the law of the land, with no religious exemptions) you SHOULD lose tax free status
Yes I understand your position and I’m disagreeing with you to the extent that I think you are most likely incorrect. I mean there is no case directly on point because the issue has never come before the Court but even without such a precedent it’s not difficult to make an educated guess based on dicta, analogus cases and general principles the Court follows when deciding such issues. Did you even read the full opinion in Walz or just the holding or a summary ? Because the Court spends a lot of time discussing the broader issues that would also apply to taxing religious institutions as well and covers this stuff quite extensively. For instance:
We must also be sure that the end result -- the
effect -- is not an excessive government
entanglement with religion. The test is
inescapably one of degree. Either course, taxation
of churches or exemption, occasions some
degree of involvement with religion. Elimination of
exemption would tend to expand the involvement
of government by giving rise to tax valuation of
church property, tax liens, tax foreclosures, and
the direct confrontations and conflicts that follow
in the train of those legal processes. 397 US 664,
675.
And:
In analyzing either alternative, the questions are
whether the involvement is excessive and whether
it is a continuing one calling for official and
continuing surveillance leading to an
impermissible degree of entanglement. Ibid at
676.
So given these quotes along with the rest of the discussion in the case it demonstrates the Court’s serious concerns of the dangers of excessive entanglement between government and religion. And not only that, they go on to specifically conclude in this context that administering a tax on religious institutions would necessarily involve a greater entanglement than an exemption would. And if you combine that with the fact that the Court has consistently held that the power to tax poses a special threat to fundamental rights and it would seem you have quite a bit more weighing against Constitutionality than for it.
Warren’s proposal, and my critique, was specifically in the context of the Judicial Code of Conduct and expanding and extending it to the SCOTUS Justices. So yes, Congress confirms nominees, can expand the Court, and can control its budget. That has nothing whatsoever to do with regulating the conduct of Justices beyond the Constitutional remedy of impeachment. Those aren’t the same thing at all and that distinction is pretty important.
And yes, the non-religious activities of a church may be taxed under some circumstances but you’re trying to extend a specific exception to a general rule and it doesn’t work that way. Do you really not see how the ability to tax a church under certain narrow and limited cases in no way stands for the notion that a general tax on churches would be Constitutional?
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?
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.