• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Walz vs Tax Commission

LiberalAvenger

LiberalAvenger

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
16,881
Reaction score
2,980
Location
virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
LiberalAvenger said:
The Walz vs NY Tax Commission is an interesting case involving the taxation of churches.

The court ruled in favor of churches. I believe it is one of the most stupid decisions in it's history. The court used "public interest" in order to circumvent the constitution.

What do ya'll think.

Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, U.S. Supreme Court Case Summary & Oral Argument
Click to expand...

I think you have no clue as to why the decision was made.

"In a 7-to-1 decision, the Court held that the exemptions did not violate the Establishment Clause. The Court held that the purpose of the exemptions was to neither advance nor inhibit religion; no one particular church or religious group had been singled out to receive tax exempt status. Unlike direct subsidies, which would have unduly entangled the state with religion, tax exemptions created only "minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches." The Court noted that "benevolent neutrality" toward churches and religions was "deeply embedded in the fabric of our national life."
 
Blackdog said:
I think you have no clue as to why the decision was made.

"In a 7-to-1 decision, the Court held that the exemptions did not violate the Establishment Clause. The Court held that the purpose of the exemptions was to neither advance nor inhibit religion; no one particular church or religious group had been singled out to receive tax exempt status. Unlike direct subsidies, which would have unduly entangled the state with religion, tax exemptions created only "minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches." The Court noted that "benevolent neutrality" toward churches and religions was "deeply embedded in the fabric of our national life."
Click to expand...

If you think I have no clue then it's only your opinion. When I mentioned"public interest" it was from an essay I had written in college in which I used The Encylopedia of the United States Constitution" for a reference to that phrase. The phrase "public interest" was contained in the transcript of the case as it was being argued in the court. I used it before the internet was invented by Al Gore. The book was located in what is called a library.

I would like to know why you think I have no clue. Do you believe that I am intellectually incapable of comprehending it? If so that is a below the belt insult because you don't even know me. If you make a statement like that in a debate you should offer support to your assertion. Instead you only imply. You have no idea who you are debating.

This case is far too complicated to discuss in a few words. There are ton of dissenting critques of this case that believe the same way I do.

Are you a conservative? If you are then this is a prime example of the supreme court "Making law". Roe v Wade would be another example of the court making law, viotating the seperation of powers doctrine.

I do thank you for responding to the post, though. Have a nice day.:)

http://factsonfile.infobasepublishi...N=0816067635&Parent=U.S.+History&browseType=0
 
Last edited:
LiberalAvenger said:
If you think I have no clue then it's only your opinion. When I mentioned"public interest" it was from an essay I had written in college in which I used The Encylopedia of the United States Constitution" for a reference to that phrase. The phrase "public interest" was contained in the transcript of the case as it was being argued in the court. I used it before the internet was invented by Al Gore. The book was located in what is called a library.
Click to expand...

I still think you have no clue.

The SCOTUS made the right call on this one, and I have no idea what this has to do with any mention of "public interest" as you did not mention it in the first post?

In fact you gave nothing but an opinion and link, then you start on about the library? So what? I don't care how you came to your opinion on it.

LiberalAvenger said:
I would like to know why you think I have no clue. Do you believe that I am intellectually incapable of comprehending it?
Click to expand...

No. I think it this case you are focusing on one facet that has little bearing on the actual decision.

LiberalAvenger said:
If so that is a below the belt insult because you don't even know me. If you make a statement like that in a debate you should offer support to your assertion. Instead you only imply. You have no idea who you are debating.
Click to expand...

How did you pull all that out of this...

"I think you have no clue as to why the decision was made." - Blackdog

Notice the part in red.

LiberalAvenger said:
This case is far too complicated to discuss in a few words. There are ton of dissenting critques of this case that believe the same way I do.
Click to expand...

This case is not that complicated. Talking heads would like to make it such. This line sums it up....

"The Court held that the purpose of the exemptions was to neither advance nor inhibit religion; no one particular church or religious group had been singled out to receive tax exempt status."

Looks pretty simple.

And your fallacy appeal means nothing as far as this goes.

LiberalAvenger said:
Are you a conservative? If you are then this is a prime example of the supreme court "Making law".
Click to expand...

Yes.

It was law long before the SCOTUS got to it. In fact it has been pretty much in effect since the nation was founded. All they did was confirm the correct interpretation.

LiberalAvenger said:
Roe v Wade would be another example of the court making law, viotating the seperation of powers doctrine.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with Roe V Wade. It is not really the same intellectually or morally.

LiberalAvenger said:
I do thank you for responding to the post, though. Have a nice day.:)
Click to expand...

Thanks, you to.

Sorry about the loooooong wait to reply.
 
Blackdog said:
I still think you have no clue.

The SCOTUS made the right call on this one, and I have no idea what this has to do with any mention of "public interest" as you did not mention it in the first post?

In fact you gave nothing but an opinion and link, then you start on about the library? So what? I don't care how you came to your opinion on it.



No. I think it this case you are focusing on one facet that has little bearing on the actual decision.



How did you pull all that out of this...

"I think you have no clue as to why the decision was made." - Blackdog

Notice the part in red.



This case is not that complicated. Talking heads would like to make it such. This line sums it up....

"The Court held that the purpose of the exemptions was to neither advance nor inhibit religion; no one particular church or religious group had been singled out to receive tax exempt status."

Looks pretty simple.

And your fallacy appeal means nothing as far as this goes.



Yes.

It was law long before the SCOTUS got to it. In fact it has been pretty much in effect since the nation was founded. All they did was confirm the correct interpretation.



This has nothing to do with Roe V Wade. It is not really the same intellectually or morally.



Thanks, you to.

Sorry about the loooooong wait to reply.
Click to expand...

You may have your opinion and I have mine. It is the supreme court messing with the separation of church and state doctrine. "congress shall make no law for the establishment of religions." The most important thing needed to establish organized religion is money and this is what the decision has indirectly allowed.

Using the supreme court's logic anyone who does good things for the public interest is entitled to be tax free, which it does in some instances of charity but Pat Robertson, the billionaire, is a prime example of the abuses caused by this ruling.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
You may have your opinion and I have mine. It is the supreme court messing with the separation of church and state doctrine. "congress shall make no law for the establishment of religions." The most important thing needed to establish organized religion is money and this is what the decision has indirectly allowed.

Using the supreme court's logic anyone who does good things for the public interest is entitled to be tax free, which it does in some instances of charity but Pat Robertson, the billionaire, is a prime example of the abuses caused by this ruling.
Click to expand...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Click to expand...
Congress shall make no law....you can stop right there. If they tax a church they are making a law. A tax can only exist by law. They cannot make a law either for or against religion.
 
American said:
Congress shall make no law....you can stop right there. If they tax a church they are making a law. A tax can only exist by law. They cannot make a law either for or against religion.
Click to expand...


Wow the greatest legal mind on dp, american:roll:
16th amendment [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution]Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Wow the greatest legal mind on dp, american:roll:
16th amendment Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
I don't claim to be the greatest legal mind at DP, but no one has yet come in here and defeated me in general debates on the US Constitution. You go ahead and read back as far as you want. I'm not a Constitutional Scholar, but I know that that as true as the sky is blue, the Founders intent behind the clauses were never meant to be open to any interpretation. Only amendments can change the Constitution, and you have to read the debates that support these amendments to really understand how they affect the Constitution.
 
American said:
I don't claim to be the greatest legal mind at DP, but no one has yet come in here and defeated me in general debates on the US Constitution. You go ahead and read back as far as you want. I'm not a Constitutional Scholar, but I know that that as true as the sky is blue, the Founders intent behind the clauses were never meant to be open to any interpretation. Only amendments can change the Constitution, and you have to read the debates that support these amendments to really understand how they affect the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you are a legend in your own mind.:roll: I wonder why they even bothered to make a supreme court?:roll:
 
Well you bring your best shot, but I suggest you leave the liberal side at the door.
 
The 16th amendment has nothing to do with the ability to tax churches.

They cannot tax churches because it would in essence affect the churches ability to function. It has nothing to do with Pat Robertson either.

Pat Robertson does pay taxes, as do all church employees etc. Only the church as an entity cannot be taxed.
 
Blackdog said:
The 16th amendment has nothing to do with the ability to tax churches.

They cannot tax churches because it would in essence affect the churches ability to function. It has nothing to do with Pat Robertson either.

Pat Robertson does pay taxes, as do all church employees etc. Only the church as an entity cannot be taxed.
Click to expand...

I wonder if you realize what you just said. You help prove my points.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
I wonder if you realize what you just said. You help prove my points.
Click to expand...

No it does not.

The government cannot tax churches not because they do good or any such nonsense. It is because it would be a doorway into government involvement with religion. Since congress can make NO LAW, that hinders religion etc, taxes are included.

So far nothing you have stated has anything to do with the GOOD CALL by the SCOTUS. It has been unassociated ramblings that literally mean nothing.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Just a friendly reminder than civility is a must. This is your first and last warning in this thread.
 
I'm not sure where in the Constitution it says that everyone must be taxed at the same rate. If it did, it seems like the current progressive tax system would be unconstitutional. As far as I know they can decide not to tax anyone or any organization that they choose. I'm guessing the SCOTUS would find a problem somewhere if the IRS decided to give tax breaks only to white males. I'm sure someone knows the law better than I do on this subject.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Who is stalking who? I started this thread and it was fairly serious until you showed up.:)
Click to expand...
Tell me what asking whether I have read Mein Kampf has to do with your topic? How serious was your thread, all you did was ask for peoples opinions on a case. Then you seemed to cry when people didn't say what you wanted to hear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom