NEWS: First Shots Fired in Religion vs. IRS Battle

I believe it is known as Article Three of the United States Constitution. You know, the one that establishes the Judicial Branch of the Federal Government and gives it the right of arbitration over cases involving the constitution. Which basically means, their job is to decide what the constitution means in specific cases.

Totally incorrect, as usual. Totally and hilariously wrong.

The reason this is an exception is because it presents a clear and present danger to the safety of the patrons, it has zero to do with the rights of the theater owner. Just because you like to fart out baseless interpretations of laws doesn't make them true, or legally relevant.

For the record, I agree with the idea that religious institutions should not have restrictions on their rights to make political statements. I do not agree with the law as it is enforced now. I don't believe it's unconstitutional to enforce those laws as the First Amendment has been construed, but in my ideal universe of interpretation, the First Amendment should prohibit this threat of taxation for expression of political viewpoints in a couple of different directions. That said, it doesn't help when you just invent legal interpretations out of whole cloth.

Justice Hugo Black (kinda) excluded, almost no one has ever interpreted the "Congress to make no law" clause to mean actually "no law", and few believed that the Amendment should apply only to Congress as opposed to the federal government as a whole. Not the Framers, not the first Congress, not the courts at that time. It's simply never, ever been interpreted that way in a serious sense. I mean, I know you don't care and that the law should only mean what you think it should mean, but I thought other people might like to know.

Oh, for fuck's sake. Dodge more, could you? Show me where I said that.

Try again.

On specific cases, not an interpretation of how SCOTUS ruled in 2 or 10 very different cases many years deciding what the constitution means with regard to this case now.

The doctrine of stare decisis is horseshit.

Thus the ruling that the first amendment does not prohibit congress from making laws that are intended to constrain or restrict political speech is a poster child for why stare decisis is horseshit.

The writers of the bill of rights clearly had the specific intent to protect political speech from ANY federal government intervention of any kind at all.


"SHALL MAKE NO LAW" has no exceptions.

You really do just yammer on simply to hear your lips flap don't ya? I have never seen anyone so insanely and obstinantly contradictory. If someone on CE said the sky was blue you would fucking debate it wouldn't you? You must be a fucking hoot at parties after ya get a couple of beers in you.

I think it's great that there are opposing opinions on here but when it is simply you arguing for the sake of being argumentative that gum grows old rather quickly. Do us all a favor and do some research before posting instead of just blowing unsubstantiated hot air. Seriously, you could probably make some valid points if you had some facts behind them. Instead it's just you stamping your feet and shrieking "NO NO NO NO...I DON'T WANNA!!"

Go take a look at the history of that 1954 tax code. Did you know that it's intent was to keep the influence of Communism out of non-profit organizations? To ensure that the Commies could not benefit from a tax free status and use that power to sway elections? That it was LBJ that packaged it all up to include religious organizations to take the steam out of the some incredibly influential religious radio personalities who were hiding behind their tax free status and raking in millions while dictating what books should be banned, what movies should be shunned and what candidates deserved to be in office.

You are a reletively intelligent person. Don't sell yourself short by constantly firing from the hip. Do some digging, cite some facts, and make your point. Take a look at the big picture for a change.

Oh...and you will never win an argument against Stiles when it involves Constitutional law.


Never

Give up now.

The writers of the bill of rights clearly had the specific intent to protect political speech from ANY federal government intervention of any kind at all.

"SHALL MAKE NO LAW" has no exceptions, no excuses no evasive bullshit.

It means exactly what it says, "congress shall make no law".

Except it does. You, loudly proclaiming something over and over, does not make that something true - but it does reveal your ignorance of the subject at hand.

petepolly, what does "we the people" mean, as it is written in the constitution? You know, the first three words?

Buzzzup, that is incorrect, but thank you for playing Jeopardy!

No it is not my ignorance, it is your arrogance, and that of a lot of lawyers.

Stop evading the issue.

Coming from you, the king of moving goalposts, that's rich. You're the guy saying that the words in the constitution are static. Answer the question, or get laughed out of the room.

Again.

Here's the thing...on the slim chance you would actually read something prior to forming an opinion take a look at this. The IRS outlines 21 separate scenarios that would and would not violate the current tax code. I think that this one fits the current situation just nicely, does not infringe upon freedom of speech, and certainly falls within the letter of the law.

You are changing the subject!

Means what it says, as in "we the people of this nation do XYZ"

Why the fuck should he not make the endorsement at church from the pulpit?

Bzzzt! When the Constitution was written, "We the people" referred to white male landowners, and nobody else. Slavery was legal, women and minorities had no rights.

Obviously, things change: Constitutional amendments and the Supreme Court are the two ways it happens in that area, and nobody's amending the Constitution again anytime soon.

This makes the SCOTUS the arbiter of the Constitution as it applies to law. Period.

I'm sorry, earlier you said that the First Amendment only applied to Congress. Now you're saying it applied to ANY federal government intervention. How can you reconcile this? Are you saying that there might be depth to the words beyond the "plain" meaning?

Please use authority. You're (obviously) wrong, but I want you to try to prove it like you fabulously failed to try to explain abortion law in that thread you ran away from last time.

Ironical!

He is the authority in such matters, and you are merely an arrogant lawyer.

i keep waiting for him to start a sentence with "But Ron Paul said......"

So you're saying this is Livertarian's secret panda twin?

This thread could have catalyzed a really interesting debate riddled with Supreme Court case citations ( ), but instead, we get this.

Eff you petepolly. We could have been talking about Bob Jones University v. United States by now.

No it meant that only white male land owners could vote in most states. In some states IIRC even as early as the revolution non landowners could vote, and owning land was not a big deal then, with such a small population and huge amount of land.

So what? We do not allow people under 18 to vote. We do not allow felons to vote in many states.

So what?

It still means what it says.