Better health insurance for everyone at a great price. The plan is already written. So easy.
So what if it wasn’t from the holding? I can show you numerous cases, even landmark ones, where dicta became the future holding of the Court. And I’ve already explained why the dicta is likely more significant than usual. Once again why do you think the Court spends so much time on an issue not presently before it?
And that part about “excessive entanglement” is extremely important. It shows up in other important FE/E cases like Yoder and is the third prong of the Lemon test. And the Court in Walz seems much more skeptical of the entanglement issue than you are since they not only raise the issue in the first place but then 1) specifically conclude that taxing churches would involve increased government entanglement 2) list several specific examples of how this increased entanglement would occur.
And I think everyone agrees that no case is precisely on point, so you haven’t cited any decisions in direct support of your position either have you? Yet again, just because the Court has not yet ruled on an issue does not mean that we cannot make reasonable predictions about the outcome or that all outcomes are equally likely. Hell, lawyers and legal scholars use dicta for just that predictive purpose all the time because it’s widely known in legal circles that the Court frequently uses dicta to drop hints about potential future rulings. So it’s much more than my gut, it’s the dicta in Walz, the legal maxim “the power to tax is the power to destroy” and its relevance to Constitutional Rights, the differences between churches and say the Press. It’s all of that and a whole lot more buy that’s at least a portion of the legal argument. The status quo argument is partly legal and partly practical and is on top of all the rest.
And you know, if the people here who argue with me about Constitutional Law knew a fraction of what they think they know they wouldn’t keep making this same basic mistake about its most fundamental aspect. The plain text of the Constitution is the beginning of Con Law and not even close to the end. The end is the current case law that interprets that text. For instance, ever notice how the Constitution says that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech but we have laws that abridge speech in seemingly direct contradiction of the plain text? Do you know how that came about?
And beyond that and concerning the taxing of both churches and newspapers, do you mean that both can be taxed under some circumstances but not necessarily under others? Did you miss the two cases I cited where the Court struck down taxes on newspapers on First Amendment grounds? How on Earth did they do that when the plain text of the Constitution doesn’t say anything about prohibiting taxes on newspapers?
Lol. Ok, buddy. Enjoy your law stuff hobby.
Now we’re getting somewhere, maybe. Your first quote cites exactly the “excessive entanglement” I’ve been talking about all along. What you seem to be missing is that the “excessive entanglement” is precisely the inhibition of Free Exercise that your first bolded portion mentions and the prescribed governmental acts in the second part you bolded. In other words, it doesn’t say what you think it does and if anything supports my argument more than yours.
As far as your second quote, I am arguing that a tax on the income and real property of churches is the “kind of involvement that would tip the balance toward government control of churches.” Remember the whole “the power to tax is the power to destroy” thing?
Honestly, I don’t even see the relevance of your last quote. Are you focusing on the “aid all religions” part? Because you do realize that when Justice Black wrote this that religious exemptions for taxations existed then just as they do now right? I don’t recall Justice Black ever crusading to declare those exemptions unconstitutional do you?
And for the third time (?), you said this: 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 (Bolding mine). The clear implication from the bolded part is that you believe that there is a causal relationship between the Court never speaking on the issue and Congress being able to “act in this space” and that is completely incorrect. There is no causality, there is no default because there is no second option, there is no space to act in besides the infinite. And the implied effect of silence on a legal issue and the phrase “act in this space” when referring to legislation is typical of language having to do with preemption and completely inapplicable here.
And once yet again, just because the Court has not spoken does not mean no one can accurately predict the eventual outcome. In can be done with analogous precedent, signalled by dicta, etc. Do you think when television was first invented that no one could predict that it could fall under Free Speech or Free Press protections? The fact that you think a precisely on point precedent is the only possible evidence of how a future case might be decided shows that you still don’t get this. The fact that you use your horribly flawed argument to declare a QED is just sad.
But wait it gets sadder. I didn’t presume anything about you or anyone else. What I did was conclude you and others are ignorant of the law in this context based on you and them continually posting wrong stuff about the law and based on the general principle that people who have never studied the law tend to be pretty ignorant of it. It’s not my “thing,” and it’s not my fault you and others keep posting wrong stuff. Is that your “thing”? It’s a board dedicated to fighting ignorance so what do you expect?
And really? This is the saddest part of all. Are you really trying to bring in a Natural Law vs Legal Positivism philosophical discussion about whether rights are granted by the Constitution or inherent in nature? Really? And yes I’m quite aware that the Court, in a philosophical context, speaks of rights not being granted. In other contexts and in the common parlance lawyers, legal scholars, and even judges/Justices refer to rights being granted all the time. Holy shit you are out-pedanting even lawyers.
Judicial Magic: the Use of Dicta as Equitable Remedy
University of San Francisco Law Review Vol 46 883 at 899(footnotes omitted):
The power of well-crafted dicta to influence future outcomes is illustrated by allusion to the better-known practice of judicial dissent. In the course of American legal history, several dissenting opinions have succeeded in changing the law, either by persuading Congress to enact new legislation or by persuading a new court majority.91 Among the most famous, and certainly the most dramatic, was Justice Storey’s dissent in Cary v. Curtis, which became law only thirty-six days after its publication, upon passage of congressional legislation regarding the collection of customs duties.92 Other dissents, like Justice Harlan’s impassioned rejection of the separate but equal doctrine in Plessy v. Ferguson, were forced to await redemption by a future generation.93 These cases are examples of dissent as earnest, principled, and eloquent. But this process of transforming dissent into positive law applies as equally to dicta as to its more heroic judicial cousin.
If you didn’t know, dissent is always dicta. So it turns out dissents and other dicta can be influential and even inform or predict a future case’s outcome after all. Hobby huh?
Are you saying you’re the author of that piece?
Church of Scientology: you’re good with them being tax-exempt?
I never called Sander’s proposed Constitutional Amendment unconstitutional. I said his general proposal to end Corporate Personhood for for-profit corporations was stupid and doomed to fail. And that one of the ways it would likely be doomed to fail is if it was passed as a statute where it would possibly be struck down. I thought that “passed as a statute” part was obviously implied but I guess not. His proposed Constitutional Amendment will never pass either because once again, it is a stupid, stupid idea.
So have you figured out why teachers (or doctors, or physicists, or architects…) can’t practice law yet?
And believe me, I am far less impressed than you and for much better reasons.
What? Are you actually serious? Either way I’m even much less impressed now, but if you’re serious…just…wow.
“Passed as a statute” has nothing to do with any proposal he’s made, as far as I know, so that’s an astonishingly unlikely way for it to fail. It seems like you didn’t do any research at all before criticizing him, but are unwilling, for some reason, to admit that.
Good grief, dude. I’m ignoring your tantrum about how your authority’s not being respected, not because I don’t think authority should be respected, but because AFAICT you’ve never actually claimed any authority. If you want to tell us that you’ve argued cases before the Supreme Court, or that you’ve clerked for Kavanaugh, or that you’re a professor of constitutional law, or that you work for a small law firm in Texas and handle the odd civil rights case, or that you’re a first year law student, we’ll at least have a claim of authority to consider, if it’s all that important to you. But as it is, you’re hinting without claiming, and that tends to raise my suspicions.
Yup, exactly like that too. Seriously. A fine example. Did you think because I was criticizing certain Democratic candidates that there was no way I was going to hold that bloviating asshole to the same standard? I mean as President I would hold to him a higher standard but this is Trump and wherever the bar is he’s almost always under it.
Yeah, that’s because the main point is the rank idiocy of his overall idea and that’s far more important than whatever way he fails to make it law. And “astonishingly unlikely”? Really? You don’t think that if Sanders is elected he wouldn’t try and pass it as a statute first? Why the hell wouldn’t he? He would have nothing significant to lose as far as I can see and quite a bit to gain if it was somehow upheld or struck down on extremely narrow grounds.
And what tantrum? What you call a tantrum I call a statement of pure, plain, inescapable logic and reality that you tellingly fail to acknowledge is true. What does it matter what credentials I can claim on the internet of all places? What matters is my arguments and you and others have done nothing but flail at them. And your and the others lack of credentials is relevant in that it’s exactly the reason you all keep flailing. It’s not about recognizing my authority it’s about people on a board dedicated to fighting ignorance perpetuating it entirely because of their egos.
Let me get this straight, if I claim legal credentials on the internet then somehow all the legal arguments and points I’ve been making magically become valid or at least worth considering but if I don’t do so then all those arguments and points are worthless. Is that the gist of what you’re saying? Really? Fine, I have a J.D. and have had it for 15 years. In the past I have specialized in Constitutional Law but am currently not practicing for medical reasons. My wife is a lawyer and law professor and I know quite a few legal academics and even more lawyers, though some of the latter are fairly useless. Happy now? Can we move forward?
Wow. Okay, my curiosity is satisfied.
If the choices are:
A) the Church of Scientology gets a tax exemption
B) O’Rourke decides which churches do and don’t
I choose A) every damn day and twice on Sunday.
It’s nice to find an area of agreement :).
That said, I’m not convinced that the 501(c)(3) laws under which churches get exemption are enforced as rigorously as they should be. it should take some effort on part of the church to show that their finances are transparent, that leadership is paying appropriate income tax on all compensation they receive (from room and board to use of private jets), and so on.
I suspect that if the Church of Scientology were required to file a 990 and were audited when they did not, and if this policy were applied evenhandedly to all not-for-profits, there would be fewer calls for specifically revoking their tax exempt status: the general enforcement would suffice.
Interesting. So what would your answer be if someone specifically asked you if you are ok with Scientology having a tax exemption?
Well, that’s going to be a hour or two of your life you’ll never get back. :rolleyes:
Right, Beto is kind of a dingbat. But Ted Cruz is SO godawful that nearly half the state’s voters would have voted for literally anyone other than him. I think that’s what’s really telling here- Cruz, Trump and the GOP so alienated everyone except for the hardcore GOP voters that they were willing to vote for goofy Beto instead of Cruz.
It wasn’t some kind of awesomeness on the part of Beto personally, and not particular awesomeness on the part of his policy choices. Rather, it was that he wasn’t a Republican, wasn’t hostile to everyone who isn’t white/rural/wealthy, and was a viable, realistic candidate (the Texas Democratic party has had a habit of running non-viable candidates for senate in recent decades). Plus, he had a couple of very good moments rising above Trump’s foul wake in 2018.
I think that maybe he and the rest of the Democratic party misread that and thought he had more going for him than kind of being an anti-Cruz and anti-Trump at the right moment, and that’s why he thought running for president was a good idea.
Beto is quite literally a rock star of the Democratic party. Cruz tried to use his “El Paso Pussycat” band picture against him, but the dude looks GOOOD in a dress, and it backfired. Beto is intelligent, good-looking, passionate, and sincere.
But he is not savvy, and he’s not experienced.
I think Beto believed that being a handsome smart honest rich dude would be enough
to make him the most powerful person on the planet. He’s wrong, and it’s been cringeworthy to watch him refuse to learn that.