• 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!

Supreme Court Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns

Really? Now churches don't have rights either? So the government could shut down a church and seize its property?

Churches have no rights. It's a building. Religions only have the rights granted to them by the government. With one exception, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Other than that the government could, if it wanted, tax churches, regulate where they can be built and even if one can be built. As an example.
 
Last edited:
No it isn't. The people can associate and practice their religion all they want. A church isn't an individual, it's a group - almost exactly like a corporation.
No it's not nor are they. Once a "group" incorporates it becomes a corporation. Why incorporate at all? As a liability shield.

A church is a building and has no rights. A religion is a different story.
 
The author is not a leader or spokesman for the ACLU. Nor does this article contain any discussion of ACLU positions as far as I can tell.

The fact that you would think this is the least bit relevant proves my suspicions about your ability to separate relevant fact from worthless, pointless, or inaccurate information.

If you want to know what they ACLU really thinks and does, it's very easy to find out at American Civil Liberties Union.


I brought up the Menkin article because you were quick to blurt that you were a member of the ACLU as if that is supposed to stifle someone. So is this guy, do you agree with what he says?


And if I want to know what the ACLU thinks on any given issue all I need do is watch their actions, I wouldn't believe a word they say about themselves....


j-mac
 
Churches have no rights. It's a building. Religions only have the rights granted to them by the government. With one exception, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Other than that the government could, if it wanted, tax churches, regulate where they can be built and even if one can be built. As an example.

No it's not nor are they. Once a "group" incorporates it becomes a corporation. Why incorporate at all? As a liability shield.

A church is a building and has no rights. A religion is a different story.

So yet again, without any evidence other than your own feelings and misinterpretations, you argue that the government could ban the construction of any churches or the formation of any sort of formally organized religious group?
 
So yet again, without any evidence other than your own feelings and misinterpretations, you argue that the government could ban the construction of any churches or the formation of any sort of formally organized religious group?

I think both of those fall under individual religion, association, and property rights.
 
Is it really that difficult for you to explain when you disagree with someone? Does it make you feel important to have some one ask... Then what do YOU think it means. :roll:

Sorry. It's frustrating sometimes.

Judicial activism is when a judge goes beyond the literal words of the law or Constitution and move toward making his or her own law based on his own ideas about what is right or wrong, as if he were a legislator rather than a judge.

The opposite of that is called judicial conservatism. It means sticking to the more narrow interpretation of the law or the Constitution.

This decision was pretty judicially conservative.
 
Churches have no rights. It's a building.

I meant churches as in religions, like the Roman Catholic Church.

Religions only have the rights granted to them by the government.

That's a whole new can of worms. Now you have to read the Declaration of Independence and the 9th Amendment.

With one exception, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Other than that the government could, if it wanted, tax churches, regulate where they can be built and even if one can be built. As an example.

Religions are groups. Just FYI.
 
So yet again, without any evidence other than your own feelings and misinterpretations, you argue that the government could ban the construction of any churches or the formation of any sort of formally organized religious group?

So yet again you build a strawman. Please quote where I said that "...the government could ban... the formation of any sort of formally organized religious group".

But yes, your local zoning commission could reject the request for a building permit.

But please make yourself look foolish again.
 
I meant churches as in religions, like the Roman Catholic Church.
Then you should say religion. ;)

That's a whole new can of worms. Now you have to read the Declaration of Independence and the 9th Amendment.
I've read and know them both quite well. Now explain your application.

Religions are groups. Just FYI.
There you go again with your confusion on the difference between the tangible and the intangible. Religion is an idea. People might gather to practice their idea in a church for instance. They would then be a group of people practicing their religion in their church. All of those highlighted things are different from each other and are in no way the same.
 
So yet again you build a strawman. Please quote where I said that "...the government could ban... the formation of any sort of formally organized religious group".

But couldn't they under your argument? If not, why not? What protects them, as a group?
 
Then you should say religion. ;)

Christianity is a religion; the Roman Catholic Church is a church. Religions aren't really organizations with finances and governing bodies, but churches are. That's why I said church. But now we understand each other.

I've read and know them both quite well. Now explain your application.

Really? You just said churches have no rights except what the government gives them. The 9th Amendment clearly says this is not necessarily true.

There you go again with your confusion on the difference between the tangible and the intangible. Religion is an idea. People might gather to practice their idea in a church for instance. They would then be a group of people practicing their religion in their church. All of those highlighted things are different from each other and are in no way the same.

I thought you got it, but apparently not. Or else you're playing games.

A church can refer to a building, OR AN ORGANIZED GROUP. Much like a corporation.

The idea that an organized religious group (church) has no freedom of religion is going to get you nowhere. Don't even start that.
 
But couldn't they under your argument? If not, why not? What protects them, as a group?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Are you just trying to be funny?
 
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Are you just trying to be funny?

I think I see the problem - this also stems from the confusion over the word "church". Never mind.
 
Christianity is a religion; the Roman Catholic Church is a church. Religions aren't really organizations with finances and governing bodies, but churches are. That's why I said church. But now we understand each other.



Really? You just said churches have no rights except what the government gives them. The 9th Amendment clearly says this is not necessarily true.



I thought you got it, but apparently not. Or else you're playing games.

A church can refer to a building, OR AN ORGANIZED GROUP. Much like a corporation.

The idea that an organized religious group (church) has no freedom of religion is going to get you nowhere. Don't even start that.

I'm glad you cleared up all of your semantic mess.

Now please explain how the 9th amendment applies to the argument.
 
Sorry. It's frustrating sometimes.

Judicial activism is when a judge goes beyond the literal words of the law or Constitution and move toward making his or her own law based on his own ideas about what is right or wrong, as if he were a legislator rather than a judge.

The opposite of that is called judicial conservatism. It means sticking to the more narrow interpretation of the law or the Constitution.

This decision was pretty judicially conservative.
:rofl

So, basically, because you agree with the interpretation, it's not activism? You realize that many others think that the "more narrow" interpretation is the exact opposite, right? Including 4 other Supreme Court judges?

It's generally accepted that when a court does not follow precedent and makes new law, it's not "judicial conservativism" even if the result is a conservative result.
 
basically, because you agree with the interpretation, it's not activism?

No. Didn't say anything remotely close to that.

It's generally accepted that when a court does not follow precedent and makes new law, it's not "judicial conservativism" even if the result is a conservative result.

I wouldn't say that's generally accepted, though there are different ideas about what judicial activism means. The precedents were activist - so overturning them simply returns things to a conservative state.

And on the overall issue of corporate rights, precedent is clearly with the majority.
 
I'm glad you cleared up all of your semantic mess.

No my mess. I'm not the one who thinks a church can only be a building - especially when discussing the Constitution (you know, stuff like "separation of church and state")

Now please explain how the 9th amendment applies to the argument.

Churches don't necessarily have only the rights specifically granted to them by the government.
 
So yet again you build a strawman. Please quote where I said that "...the government could ban... the formation of any sort of formally organized religious group".

But yes, your local zoning commission could reject the request for a building permit.

But please make yourself look foolish again.

You just said that the group, i.e. the Roman Catholic Church, has no rights. Accordingly, under your erroneous interpretation, the government can refuse to allow that organizational entity to have a tax exemption, build its churches, or even be chartered.

You really don't seem to understand the first thing about what you're talking about. If you can't come up with a coherent argument with any support for your claims, I'm done wasting my time trying to explain this to you.

:rofl

So, basically, because you agree with the interpretation, it's not activism? You realize that many others think that the "more narrow" interpretation is the exact opposite, right? Including 4 other Supreme Court judges?

It's generally accepted that when a court does not follow precedent and makes new law, it's not "judicial conservativism" even if the result is a conservative result.

Please explain what precedents were overturned in this case and how you think it constitutes activism.
 
Last edited:
Ah, I thought you had not idea what judicial activism is.

No, that's not it at all.

Sure it is. Especially when that particular judge is champion a cause that is supported by the manner in which he/she decides a case.
 
Please explain what precedents were overturned in this case and how you think it constitutes activism.

Personally, I don't believe there really is such as thing as judicial activism. I think judges are people and they are influenced by their own experiences, and sometimes can be biased and wrong, just like any other human being. I don't think judges say "I am a judicial activist" especially since the exact same judge may agree with "judicial activism" in one case and be the exact opposite in another.

But, using the standard definition of it as a decision that freely overturns precedent and overturns legislation to make its own laws, this certainly applies. Even the opinion itself admits it overturns precedents.

See, here's the key: Almost every single opinion the Supreme Court issues does this. That's their job -- they overturn laws all the time when they believe they runs counter to the Constitution.

That's why I find the whole "judicial activism" meme silly.
 
Sure it is. Especially when that particular judge is champion a cause that is supported by the manner in which he/she decides a case.

That's not the definition of judicial activism. Sorry.
 
But, using the standard definition of it as a decision that freely overturns precedent and overturns legislation to make its own laws, this certainly applies. Even the opinion itself admits it overturns precedents.

It's not judicial activism if the precedents were activist. That's returning to the original intent, which is pretty damn conservative.
 
It's not judicial activism if the precedents were activist. That's returning to the original intent, which is pretty damn conservative.

And who decides the "original intent"?

See, the problem is that, like fundamentalist preachers reading the Bible, many conservatives are absolutely convinced that they, and they alone, know exactly what the "original intent" is, and therefore any case that agrees with their viewpoint is "judicial conservatism" and any one that doesn't is "judicial activism."

Those of us who are not so biased and self-centered understand that things are not always black and white, that learned minds can disagree on the law and the "original intent" and that our Constitution is not a Bible.
 
And who decides the "original intent"?

Whatever court rules on it last.

See, the problem is that, like fundamentalist preachers reading the Bible, many conservatives are absolutely convinced that they, and they alone, know exactly what the "original intent" is, and therefore any case that agrees with their viewpoint is "judicial conservatism" and any one that doesn't is "judicial activism."

Sometimes, yes. But usually, a judicial activist isn't claiming to know original intent better - he/she doesn't care about it, proudly so.

Judicial conservatism and political conservatism aren't the same thing.

Those of us who are not so biased and self-centered understand that things are not always black and white, that learned minds can disagree on the law and the "original intent" and that our Constitution is not a Bible.

Nobody said people can't disagree. So you're a judicial activist - good for you. But while the Constitution isn't the Bible, nobody thinks straying too far from it is a good idea - nobody. It's just a matter of how far one should go. So don't get in a tizzy.
 
Whatever court rules on it last.



Sometimes, yes. But usually, a judicial activist isn't claiming to know original intent better - he/she doesn't care about it, proudly so.

Judicial conservatism and political conservatism aren't the same thing.



Nobody said people can't disagree. So you're a judicial activist - good for you. But while the Constitution isn't the Bible, nobody thinks straying too far from it is a good idea - nobody. It's just a matter of how far one should go. So don't get in a tizzy.

How is he an activist if his interpretation is closer to the original intent?

It blows me away that you hold this position when the damaging results of corporate money in the political process have been so transparent- and transparently evident in issues you seem to care about.
 
Back
Top Bottom