Christofacists at it again

IHateGovernment said:
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.
Click to expand...


You might want to review the 18th century definition and meaning of the word "commerce". It was much broader. It didn't simply pertain to business and financial transactions. It pertained to a broader-scope of human-to-human interactions.
 
IHateGovernment said:
I am aware however mercury in water and smoke clouds wouldn't fall within it.
Click to expand...


Right, given the 18th century definition of the word "commerce" (not limited to business and financial transactions) , pollution, navigation of waterways, food-packing, and employment and wage discrimination by large to mid-sized private companies have been all interpreted to fall under the commerce clause.
 
However these acts don't always constitute interstate commerce as is widely held. Take food packing. If a meat plant sells meat of a certain nature the Congress can make laws about whether such a thing can be shipped across state lines. However it can't rule about whether they can sell it within their state. Regardless of where the cows come from or if they get water from the next state.
 
IHateGovernment said:
However these acts don't always constitute interstate commerce as is widely held. Take food packing. If a meat plant sells meat of a certain nature the Congress can make laws about whether such a thing can be shipped across state lines. However it can't rule about whether they can sell it within their state. Regardless of where the cows come from or if they get water from the next state.
Click to expand...


In Swift v. United States (1905), the Court ruled that the clause covered meatpackers; although their activity was geographically "local," they had an important effect on the "current of commerce" and thus could be regulated under the Commerce Clause. The Court's decision halted price fixing.

Stafford v. Wallace (1922) upheld a federal law regulating the Chicago meatpacking industry, because the industry was part of the interstate commerce of beef from ranchers to dinner tables. The stockyards "are but a throat through which the current [of commerce] flows," Justice Taft wrote, referring to the stockyards as "great national public utilities."


wikipedia
 
Cypress those rulings clear away any kind of limitation upon what the federal government as all commerce is inter-relational anyway. They knew this in the 18th century yet distinguished between intrastate and interstate commerce.

Those ruling lead to the conclusion there is no such thing as intrastate commerce. This is no surprise ever since the end of the civil war the federal government has justified taking more and more power of regulation from the states as the Republican party dominated the presidency and thus the judiciary for decades after the civil war.
 
IHateGovernment said:
Cypress those rulings clear away any kind of limitation upon what the federal government as all commerce is inter-relational anyway. They knew this in the 18th century yet distinguished between intrastate and interstate commerce.

Those ruling lead to the conclusion there is no such thing as intrastate commerce. This is no surprise ever since the end of the civil war the federal government has justified taking more and more power of regulation from the states as the Republican party dominated the presidency and thus the judiciary for decades after the civil war.
Click to expand...

IHG, I spent twenty post on this thread pointing out that there are limitations on the commerce clause, to the consternation of some.

Now, are the limitations as broad as you like? No. But, the courts have worked this for decades, seeking a balance. And they have enunciated some limitations - I'm just posting the cases where the commerce clause was interpreted to include more than just financial transactions.
 
From what I see your view of the commerce clause is anything that can affect society constitutes interstate commerce. What kind of trade is not included in such a thing? I know of nothing that business can do that doesn't affect society.
 
IHateGovernment said:
From what I see your view of the commerce clause is anything that can affect society constitutes interstate commerce. What kind of trade is not included in such a thing? I know of nothing that business can do that doesn't affect society.
Click to expand...


From what I see your view of the commerce clause is anything that can affect society constitutes interstate commerce

Then you've already forgotten this thread.

I caught heat for pointing out that religion was not covered by the commerce clause. Nor was employment at churches and other non-profits.

I also caught heat for pointing out that small buisnesses - Mom and Pop companies, business will less than 25 emplyees, etc - were not credibly covered under the commerce clause - e.g., your hot dog stand analogy.
 
Ok fine I see that you believe in some limitations. The thing is though I don't see how 24 employees is intrastate commerce and 26 is.
 
This "Darla" character is a genuine troll. Notice how she posts 10 times in a row, when a normal participant would surely combine posts as much as possible. Also, she has no arguments; she prefers appeal to personal differences.

I've been many trolls, so I would know. ;)
 
Brent said:
This "Darla" character is a genuine troll. Notice how she posts 10 times in a row, when a normal participant would surely combine posts as much as possible. Also, she has no arguments; she prefers appeal to personal differences.

I've been many trolls, so I would know. ;)
Click to expand...

:stup2:
 
klaatu said:
Sounds like Lady T is trying to figure out a way to screw Church's ...

Care is correct Lady T... what is your gig with trying to change the Doctrine of a Church? The reason why a Church is given Tax Exempt Status is for the Community Services they provide.

Even Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson ... what most people dont know about them is that they operate two of the largest world wide charities around. As crazy as you or I may conside them as individuals.. they do alot of good work through Charity. Why would you want to mess with that?

Religious Institutions work on both sides of the Political Spectrum ... in the end it all evens out.
Take Catholics ... despite the Church Doctrine leaning with a decidedly Conservative edge .. I'll bet the majority of Catholics vote Democratic. My home town is a perfect example ... blue collar and union to the core ... 'till this day the City Council has been ruled by Dems since I can remembr .. and the City has a huge Catholic constuency ...
look at Boston ... huge Catholic base.. yet decidedly Democrat....
Click to expand...

This is getting way too heated, and with people I like.

So let me throw some more gasoline on the fire! lol

It doesn't all even out Klatu. There's so much here Im afraid I might go on forever. So let me start with that one claim that it all evens out. Nonsense! You think that so-called "liberal" churches are balancing right wing churches, but why are these liberal churches considered liberal? Because they do not have the knee-jerk support for war we see in the right wing churches, and because they support social programs and tend towards democrats. And so they fulfill your definition of liberal. But sorry, that's not going to fly.

They are as patriarchal as any right wing church. One of probably several things that both right wing and liberal churches have in common is a belief in the scripture, and the scripture is very clear that woman is to obey man, and is subservient to him. Don't fall into the trap of believing that just because...say you have a black congregation, which many of the "liberal" churches do have...so we might fall into the trap of believing that because they are democrats and nearly always vote democrat that they are liberal. They're not. They are as vehemently anti-gay rights as anybody, and they are also institutions of sexism. Don't forget that Stokey Charmichael, the famous black power leader, once said of black women "sure there's positions for women in the movement; prone".

Why should my tax dollars go to supporting institutions that are preaching a second class position in SOCIETY at large for ME? And whenever someone is not paying taxes, the rest of us are picking that up, the glaring example being corporations. Whether I pick it up in higher taxes, or through reduced services, I'm paying for it.

And that's only one issue. The respectable face organized religion puts on sexism. Only one issue.

If we moved onto how many lives are lost every freaking day all over this globe, because of organized religion, would their charitable activities make up for it? Balance it out, so to speak? No way. As for me, I believe this would be a much better world if people kept out of church and pray the way Jesus Christ himself told them to: when no one but God can see them.
 
IHateGovernment said:
Ok fine I see that you believe in some limitations. The thing is though I don't see how 24 employees is intrastate commerce and 26 is.
Click to expand...

Well, you have to have quantifiable standards and criteria. Otherwise, its unenforceable.

And i'm not an expert on discrmination law. There very well may be other cirteria, waivers, and exemptions I'm not aware of. Lets face it: its a federal statute; it probably has 900 pages in it. I'm sure its not as simple as "25 employees or less".

I agree with you, that in areas of employment discrmination where the Federal government is powerless to touch, State laws should come into play as appropriate.
 
klaatu said:
I'd like to see this put up as Referendum ... let the people decide .. how about that? I think that would be fair ...
If the people take your side .. we would lose a whole lot of Church's ...especially the small little independent ones ...
Click to expand...

Do the people decide whether or not they themselves are tax exempt? No. And they don't get to decide this either.
 
Care4all said:
Why the heck would you want us to stop donating to the organizations that help the LEAST AMONG US?
Click to expand...

Why? Because many of those charities also spread the Gospel. Alex and other atheists do not like this, because they prefer to spread the lie that, in a random chain of a billion events, we evolved from slime. It is only natural for them to want to cripple the charities which spread the truth, even when those charities help others. That is human nature: we're evil.
 
Cypress said:
Because society decided long ago, that non-profit organizations that provide social, civil, and charitable functions for the general welfare have a benefit for the community. And TES is one avenue to encourage that.

As soon as Exxon starts providing energy and oil, in a not-profit way to the american public, they can get a TE.

Otherwise, income and profits are subject to taxation.
Click to expand...

For the general welfare of whom?

That includes women. It is not for a woman's general welfare to turn her into a SECOND CLASS CITIZEN!

You people man. If we were tlaking about having men stay home and scrub floors and say yes mam and no mam, and by the way, keep your eyes downcast when you're talking to me, boy would it be a different story.

General welfare. LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top