you beat me to it
Christofacists at it again
- Thread starter LadyT
- Start date
you beat me to it
I wouldn't be suprised if had some kind of double entity thing there. They do have tons of $$$
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
Damo does bring up a good point about becoming a church or religion gives you more credibility under the law then if you weren't. Churches are able to do things that non-religious organizations are not.
For instance if you are in prison you can make dietary demands based on your religion but no other reason.
There is a group of prisoners who formed the "church of the new song" (CONS) in order to demand that they be fed steak and lobster as part of their religious diet.
For instance if you are in prison you can make dietary demands based on your religion but no other reason.
There is a group of prisoners who formed the "church of the new song" (CONS) in order to demand that they be fed steak and lobster as part of their religious diet.
klaatu
Fusionist
Sorry to hear this USC ... I hope the best for you ... how long have you been married?
There's nothing conservative or liberal about upholding the constitution.
I believe in the moral neccessity of anti-discrminations, based on the rule of law and the constitution.
Crafting an unconstitutional anti-discrmination law helps nobody. It would be struck down by the courts.
Since the current anti-discrimination laws were crafted adquately to withstand constitutional challenge, and have been upheld for decades by both democratic and republican judges, I think the current basis of the law is on sound footing. Now, how the law in enforced may be another matter. It may be that DOJ staff working on anti-discrmination statues are underfunded and overworked. I have no empirical evidence.
This isn't a theocracy. We can't just do what sounds "morally" right. We have to base our actions of the rule of law.
Give me a piece of legislation that say ALL discrimnation, anywhere, at anytime, by anybody should be illegal, and I'll be glad to take a look at it. But, I suspect it won't pass constitutional muster.
on a lighter note: from the brief description of the example you've given, I highly doubt the CONS would even take the necessary steps to applying with the IRS to even get reviewed for tax exempt status!
I still think the point is mute because you don't have to be a church to be a nonprofit. If they are an organization that meets regulary or does charitible works with their donations, or do anything operationally that qualifies them as a nonprofit then they can get the same TE status as any church.
uscitizen
Villified User
24 years. One of the things we agreed on going in was no religion. but she had gall bladder removal 7 years ago and got scared into religion. Quit her job 3 yrs before full retirement benefits and became a spendthrift costing us nearly 100K and forcing me to sell all my stock to avoid bankruptcy.
She has washed dishes 5 times so far this year, already toppling last years record
She has washed dishes 5 times so far this year, already toppling last years record
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
This isn't a theocracy. We can't just do what sounds "morally" right. We have to base our actions of the rule of law.
Obviously though laws are not originated out of thin air. In a vacuum of laws there is a reason they are created outside of existing law and morality is at least a consideration. Now like you I believe morality should stay out of it. Philosophy on the other hand is an important consideration of law when there is a vacuum.
Cypress you might be very helpful in arguing a supreme court case but you wouldn't be too useful at a constitutional convention
Obviously though laws are not originated out of thin air. In a vacuum of laws there is a reason they are created outside of existing law and morality is at least a consideration. Now like you I believe morality should stay out of it. Philosophy on the other hand is an important consideration of law when there is a vacuum.
Cypress you might be very helpful in arguing a supreme court case but you wouldn't be too useful at a constitutional convention
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
on a lighter note: from the brief description of the example you've given, I highly doubt the CONS would even take the necessary steps to applying with the IRS to even get reviewed for tax exempt status!
I still think the point is mute because you don't have to be a church to be a nonprofit. If they are an organization that meets regulary or does charitible works with their donations, or do anything operationally that qualifies them as a nonprofit then they can get the same TE status as any church.
Actually it was brought to court and took quite some time to resolve. You will be pleased to know they didn't prevail but it wasn't just an open and shut case either.
I still think the point is mute because you don't have to be a church to be a nonprofit. If they are an organization that meets regulary or does charitible works with their donations, or do anything operationally that qualifies them as a nonprofit then they can get the same TE status as any church.
Actually it was brought to court and took quite some time to resolve. You will be pleased to know they didn't prevail but it wasn't just an open and shut case either.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
24 years. One of the things we agreed on going in was no religion. but she had gall bladder removal 7 years ago and got scared into religion. Quit her job 3 yrs before full retirement benefits and became a spendthrift costing us nearly 100K and forcing me to sell all my stock to avoid bankruptcy.
She has washed dishes 5 times so far this year, already toppling last years record
It sucks when people change.
She has washed dishes 5 times so far this year, already toppling last years record
It sucks when people change.
This isn't a theocracy. We can't just do what sounds "morally" right. We have to base our actions of the rule of law.
Obviously though laws are not originated out of thin air. In a vacuum of laws there is a reason they are created outside of existing law and morality is at least a consideration. Now like you I believe morality should stay out of it. Philosophy on the other hand is an important consideration of law when there is a vacuum.
Cypress you might be very helpful in arguing a supreme court case but you wouldn't be too useful at a constitutional convention
LOL
Well, its entirely ineffective to try to promote and implement any political philosophy, without strong consideration of wheter it can pass legal muster. If it can't credibly pass legal muster, then its just mental masterbation.
Philosophically, I do believe the commerce clause allows the Feds to regulate things like discrimination (as it pertaints to interstate commerce, and/or other constitional elements).
klaatu
Fusionist
No egg on my face.. because that is exactley what you said ...and you tried to back track only to expose yourself as the lying fool that you are ...
So how high must ones boots be when in your company ...?
No egg on my face.. because that is exactley what you said ...and you tried to back track only to expose yourself as the lying fool that you are ...
So how high must ones boots be when in your company ...?
Okay, then I DARE you, I CHALLANGE you to post a quote where I said such a thing!!!
Otherwise all we see is egg !
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
Philosophically, I do believe the commerce clause allows the Feds to regulate things like discrimination (as it pertaints to interstate commerce, and/or other constitional elements).
Lets talk about this then. From historical analysis we can see that the Constitution is a limiting not empowering document. We also know why the power to regulate interstate trade was implemented. During the time of the articles of confederation there was no interstate trade policy and thus was chaotic as difference in policies between states led to fractious policies and a adversarial relationship between favored and non favored states.
Thus during the convention it was argued that it was at least important that the federal government regulate trade transactions between states so that they would be treated equally.
However a recurring theme in the arguments giving the fed any power was to limit it greatly.
The nature of todays interpretation of the commerce clause gives the fed omnipotent power to regulate trade. It is argued that all business is interstate commerce because it involves interstate tranactions at some point in the business model.
Thus the ability to regulate commerce is not limited in anyway. If this was what the drafters of the constitution wanted they would state Congress would have the power to regulate trade period. However they said interstate. However current interpretations are used to regulate intrastate transactions because they involve interstate transactions somewhere along the business model.
This is similar to my argument about the powers of government and enumeration. The founders tried to avoid giving government omnipotent power. Yet as it stands today power to regulate trade and institute any and all kind of governmenent service in omnipotent.
This is not what was envisioned and is unconstitutional.
Lets talk about this then. From historical analysis we can see that the Constitution is a limiting not empowering document. We also know why the power to regulate interstate trade was implemented. During the time of the articles of confederation there was no interstate trade policy and thus was chaotic as difference in policies between states led to fractious policies and a adversarial relationship between favored and non favored states.
Thus during the convention it was argued that it was at least important that the federal government regulate trade transactions between states so that they would be treated equally.
However a recurring theme in the arguments giving the fed any power was to limit it greatly.
The nature of todays interpretation of the commerce clause gives the fed omnipotent power to regulate trade. It is argued that all business is interstate commerce because it involves interstate tranactions at some point in the business model.
Thus the ability to regulate commerce is not limited in anyway. If this was what the drafters of the constitution wanted they would state Congress would have the power to regulate trade period. However they said interstate. However current interpretations are used to regulate intrastate transactions because they involve interstate transactions somewhere along the business model.
This is similar to my argument about the powers of government and enumeration. The founders tried to avoid giving government omnipotent power. Yet as it stands today power to regulate trade and institute any and all kind of governmenent service in omnipotent.
This is not what was envisioned and is unconstitutional.
Damn, in the same thread I get slammed for indicating that the constitution DID limit the Feds ability to implement anti-discriminatory laws, and then I get slammed for saying the Feds went TOO FAR with it.
short answer: this isn't 1789 anymore. Some of the problems we have today, didnt' exist in 1789. We have to apply the constitution faithfully, to the world on 2006. In 1789, they didn't "envision" water and air pollution problems.
But, by faithfully using the commerce clause, we can honor and uphold the constitution to address a problem of the modern world: air and water pollution. Which is clearly an interstate problem.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
short answer: this isn't 1789 anymore. Some of the problems we have today, didnt' exist in 1789. We have to apply the constitution faithfully, to the world on 2006. In 1789, they didn't "envision" water and air pollution problems.
Thats doesn't mean you circumnavigate it. It means its time for an amendment. This is an idea that has been lost over the years. In the early 20th century it was understood the constitution had to be amended to give congress the ability to outlaw alcoholic beverages. Now it just does as it pleases claiming the living document excuse. The constitution is dynamic not because you can decide to change existing parts of it but because you can add new ones. This is what should be done in the case water or air pollution problems as you mentioned.
Interstate commerce is a good justification for interstate regulation of air and water pollution. I don't think it specifically grants that power. Pollution is a crime it isn't a transaction of trade. Now the constitution states that disputes between states can be arbitrated by the federal government and a state can sue another because of pollution but that doesn't grant the fed the ability to use prior restraint when it comes to pollution.
Thats doesn't mean you circumnavigate it. It means its time for an amendment. This is an idea that has been lost over the years. In the early 20th century it was understood the constitution had to be amended to give congress the ability to outlaw alcoholic beverages. Now it just does as it pleases claiming the living document excuse. The constitution is dynamic not because you can decide to change existing parts of it but because you can add new ones. This is what should be done in the case water or air pollution problems as you mentioned.
Interstate commerce is a good justification for interstate regulation of air and water pollution. I don't think it specifically grants that power. Pollution is a crime it isn't a transaction of trade. Now the constitution states that disputes between states can be arbitrated by the federal government and a state can sue another because of pollution but that doesn't grant the fed the ability to use prior restraint when it comes to pollution.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
short answer: this isn't 1789 anymore. Some of the problems we have today, didnt' exist in 1789. We have to apply the constitution faithfully, to the world on 2006. In 1789, they didn't "envision" water and air pollution problems.
Be careful of using this argument btw. It is the same kind of argument those in the Bush admin use to say why the "pre 9/11" constituiton isn't equipped to deal with problems of terrorism and why some of those limitations should be ignored.
Be careful of using this argument btw. It is the same kind of argument those in the Bush admin use to say why the "pre 9/11" constituiton isn't equipped to deal with problems of terrorism and why some of those limitations should be ignored.