What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Kepler said:
One man's secularization "run amok" is another man's "policy based on reason rather than superstition." But even conceding the point for argument's sake, nothing that's happened has changed anybody's religious freedom to do anything but violate civil rights, and you don't have a religious liberty to violate civil rights.

So now that we've exchanged slogans, we can talk about individual cases and where the parties' rights begin and end. The case of a government official who doesn't want to follow the law and grant marriage licenses is in my mind cut and dried. They can't do that -- following the law is part of the job description. The case of the wedding cake maker is more complicated, and I defer to unofan or somebody else who knows what the shape of the laws are there. The case of the Catholic priest who doesn't want to marry a couple in his church and has the Church's blessing to deny them is all the way on the other side to me -- he can discriminate with impunity. If the church gets federal funds, that makes it different, but I don't think churches typically get federal funds.
Click to expand...
Completely agree.

As a friend of mine asked on Facebook, "Would these southern governors and attorneys general be so adamantly supportive of a Jewish county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to widows who wished to marry anybody other than their late husbands' brothers?" Or a Catholic clerk who refused to issue licenses to divorcees? Etc. If you're not going to fight for EVERY religious exemption, then you shouldn't fight for ANY of them.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

SJHovey said:
We're not out anything. And the government tells us we can't live, farm or do business in certain locations all the time. It's called planning and zoning, and no one seems to care until a porno shop wants to move in next door to you.
Click to expand...

Bull ****. They were out a family home that had more than property value to them. That's taking away someone's house they built.

On top of that, fair market value is a kick in the pants as often as it's not. It's not always up to the jury to decide FMV. Sometimes it's whatever the person with the best lawyers says it is. Hint: It's not you!

On top of that, the person being forced to move has to deal with the hardships of being forced out of their house, relocated to an area that may not be what they want or can afford, and any other cost that's not associated with the value of the property. Frankly this whole line of thinking is bizarre.

And leasing might not be quite right, but effectively what you are saying is that we're sitting on this land at the behest of government. That is most certainly NOT what this country was founded on. It's not up to you to save your land, it's up to the government to convince The People that taking away someone's private property is an acceptable deviation from the Constitution.

Beyond that, I'm just aghast at the rest of the post. Shrill whining? If they have an army they can take it? What the hell man?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Bob Gray said:
I post an article about Christians focusing on caring for the poor, etc. You respond with your same clichéd wild misconceptions about Christians. Yup, just another day on USCHO. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Is that what it was about? Strange - all I read was someone haughtily and condescendingly pooh-poohing anyone else's ability to even grasp what the wonderful, enlightened Christians can do for the world.

Oh, woe is me - alas, but to have a Christian nearby since I am not "equipped with a vocabulary to distinguish right from wrong."
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Bob Gray said:
I post an article about Christians focusing on caring for the poor, etc. You respond with your same clichéd wild misconceptions about Christians. Yup, just another day on USCHO. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Ever notice how those ministers' mansions are huge? There HAS to be some sort of "administrative deduction".
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Kepler said:
That's the first piece by David Brooks in the last decade that wasn't tripe.

Of his parade of horribles, only one may come to pass -- removal of tax exemption for religious organizations -- and if it does they'll only have themselves to blame. When religious institutions were about building a community of faith and charitable giving, the tax exemption made sense. As they have become more and more just castles from which to launch blistering polemical partisan attacks, all the while amassing fortunes, the tax exemption makes no sense at all.

It amazes me, however, that in a country that is 70% Christian some Christians feel under siege. Trying being part of a 10% minority sometime, folks. I can't help thinking that what's really going on is that many Christians assumed that despite the First Amendment and America's long tradition of honoring religious tolerance, at least in the abstract, that these things were somehow noblesse oblige and it would be the Christian faithful who decided exactly where and when to distribute rights.

True separation of church and state doesn't work that way. Christians are going to learn the hard lesson that Jews, Muslims, atheists etc... have always known: equality means what it says. Anything lost in that transition wasn't a "liberty," it was privilege.
Click to expand...

I think I'd be for removing the tax exempt status on anything with an endowed value over $1 billion or total domestic assets in excess of some number greater than $1B as determined by estimated tax value. Not sure where the exact lines would be on where I would draw those two tiers but it's time to start fighting back against entities that - while not necessarily being for-profit - are clearly "for-wealth". Churches, universities, etc.

If you have an organization with modesty-driven values or with charitable pursuits, great! But let's not be taking advantage of taxpayers when clearly you're about gathering wealth.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

dxmnkd316 said:
Bull ****. They were out a family home that had more than property value to them. That's taking away someone's house they built.

On top of that, fair market value is a kick in the pants as often as it's not. It's not always up to the jury to decide FMV. Sometimes it's whatever the person with the best lawyers says it is. Hint: It's not you!

On top of that, the person being forced to move has to deal with the hardships of being forced out of their house, relocated to an area that may not be what they want or can afford, and any other cost that's not associated with the value of the property. Frankly this whole line of thinking is bizarre.

And leasing might not be quite right, but effectively what you are saying is that we're sitting on this land at the behest of government. That is most certainly NOT what this country was founded on. It's not up to you to save your land, it's up to the government to convince The People that taking away someone's private property is an acceptable deviation from the Constitution.

Beyond that, I'm just aghast at the rest of the post. Shrill whining? If they have an army they can take it? What the hell man?
Click to expand...
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but the Constitution doesn't prohibit the state or it's political subdivisions from taking your property. Many people have argued that, and lost. What the Constitution prohibits is the state taking your property without paying FMV for it.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

SJHovey said:
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but the Constitution doesn't prohibit the state or it's political subdivisions from taking your property. Many people have argued that, and lost. What the Constitution prohibits is the state taking your property without paying FMV for it.
Click to expand...

It doesn't even prohibit that anywhere.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

Bob Gray said:
I post an article about Christians focusing on caring for the poor, etc. You respond with your same clichéd wild misconceptions about Christians. Yup, just another day on USCHO. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I don't see any connection between this post and mine. It seems that sometimes we simply speak different languages.

Some Christians very definitely feel under siege -- they say so themselves. Even excluding the politicians and the pundits as cynical tub-thumpers, some Christians actually feel like they're hunted prey. I work with some. I do not see how you can debate this.

Christians have certainly occupied a privileged position in this country hitherto. That's what happens when you make up a huge majority of the population, even in a Republic where minority rights are supposed to be protected. This is also just a brute fact.

Now, I am interpreting that some Christians got used to being on top and now are shocked and appalled to find they're just one of many viewpoints. This is what Charles Taylor meant in A Secular Age about the "Type 3 secularization" -- the situation in which Christianity is no longer a ground condition of thought and is an active choice. This isn't surprising -- what happened with whites in the 20th century is happening with Christians in the 21st century. My wife, in her wilder younger days as a gender studies professor, used to have a little thought exercise for her VERY homogeneous U. Oregon students where she got them to understand that "white is a color." She said it blew some of them away when they made the jump, and realized that it wasn't "colored" people who were a departure from normalcy, but that there is no norm -- white is just as much a color as black. Christians are facing that now, and some of them are freaking out. No shame in that -- we all live most of our lives with mental furniture that just assumes certain things. I remember realizing that straight is just another orientation. It was disorienting, if you'll pardon me.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

It is hard to reconcile with the conservatives justices' purported concern about individual liberty, common law precedent, and the expansion of state power, that's for sure. As was their embrace of torture and the burying of habeas corpus.

Let the record show that in this general line of cases (police powers), it's those darned liberty-hating liberals who are trying to hold the line against erosion of the Bill of Rights.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

SJHovey said:
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but the Constitution doesn't prohibit the state or it's political subdivisions from taking your property. Many people have argued that, and lost. What the Constitution prohibits is the state taking your property without paying FMV for it.
Click to expand...

Kelo was all about why (or for what) they could take your property. Everyone understood it was okay for "public use" - as in hospitals, roads, police stations, etc. Where people disagree - quite legitimately, in many of our minds - is whether governments should be able to take it for a "public purpose" that is so expansive as to include simply economic development done by another private party.

The 5th amendment's takings clause is not solely limited to the "fair compensation" clause. There are limits to the taking itself, as well, though post-Kelo there are admittedly far fewer limits.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

unofan said:
Kelo was all about why (or for what) they could take your property. Everyone understood it was okay for "public use" - as in hospitals, roads, police stations, etc. Where people disagree - quite legitimately, in many of our minds - is whether governments should be able to take it for a "public purpose" that is so expansive as to include simply economic development done by another private party.

The 5th amendment's takings clause is not solely limited to the "fair compensation" clause. There are limits to the taking itself, as well, though post-Kelo there are admittedly far fewer limits.
Click to expand...
See, and that's why I don't think Kelo was necessarily a terrible decision. I don't think it really did much of anything. Even before Kelo there really wasn't much a citizen could do to challenge the taking. Courts always gave wide latitude or discretion to the condemning authority as to what was or was not a public purpose or benefit. State's weren't in the business of taking someone's home just to turn it over to someone else to use as a home. We can second guess state and local governments, but they always had some idea in mind as to why this taking would improve their community, and courts were loathe to second guess that decision.

Kelo was an opportunity to restrain that, given the factual scenario presented. But as with pretty much every other court in other cases, they deferred to the local government's decision.

I'd really be curious as to how many decisions are out there where a court found no public purpose/benefit. Gotta be very few.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

joecct said:
Your 1st paragraph sounds like Henry VIII.

I was taught that separation of Church & State was that there would never be an "official" state religion in the USA. All would be free to practice their beliefs without government coercion.

Without the Church in the public square, you're missing a counterbalance to run amok secularization.
Click to expand...

By whom and which line of cases? Were you taught entanglement theory?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

OK, so that's an exaggeration. Christianity does some good, but there's a very large, and very vocal minority of the type mocked above, and the more benevolent Christian majority needs to either own them or collectively shun them.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

burd said:
By whom and which line of cases? Were you taught entanglement theory?
Click to expand...

Let's look at the text of the 1st Amendment, shall we?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...

Seems straight forward to me. Of course if you're at a college that bans politically incorrect speech or restricts it to a "free speech zone", then one may have issues with the 1st Amendment. Heck Bowdoin banned the Intervarsity Christian Fellowship.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

joecct said:
Let's look at the text of the 1st Amendment, shall we?


Seems straight forward to me. Of course if you're at a college that bans politically incorrect speech or restricts it to a "free speech zone", then one may have issues with the 1st Amendment. Heck Bowdoin banned the Intervarsity Christian Fellowship.
Click to expand...

Fun when people say the 1st, 4th, 14th or 5th Amendments are "straight forward." Which colleges ban politically incorrect speech and how do their law schools teach 1st Amendment law? Are the various forum analyses, to say nothing of the state action component of 1st Amendment law, just needless inventions of those who would toss original intent to the scrapheap in order to serve their own agendas?

I'm really not trying to be a smartazz, Joecct--I'm no 1st Amendment expert. But sometimes things seem simpler the less we know about them.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VII - The Bedrock of the Republic!

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
OK, so that's an exaggeration. Christianity does some good, but there's a very large, and very vocal minority of the type mocked above, and the more benevolent Christian majority needs to either own them or collectively shun them.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I own it all the time. Have you ever been part of a larger group that does stuff that you don't approve of? What can you do?

I would also ask non Christians to not associate such behavior with Jesus...but with extremists that happen to claim Christianity as their rationale. Jesus general message had little to do with any of that stuff.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top