Band on the Run - I don't know whether you have ego problems with or you just don't understand. No, Congress has zero power to enact unconst'l laws. To cite a current example, Congress passed the health reform act known as ObamaCare. If the Supreme Court finds that it is uncosnt'l, the entire law or the selected portions are null and void. It will have zero effect. The Court will decide whether the legislation can be remedied or whehter it must fail in its entirety. Congress is always incompetent to perform unconst'l acts. The Court decides what is proper, not Congress.
We are not discussing Bob Jones here. Bob Jones does not remotely apply. The facts you present involved targeting certain religions as "dangerous." Again, for the final time, "dangerousness" is too vague for any legislation. It gives no notice to the public as to what acts are illegal or trigger removal of tax exemption and what acitivities do not. Legislation can never be so vague. Void for vagueness is an important const'l principle. Secondly, the First Amendment protects religions from precisely the government discimination that caused the majority of American colonies to be formed. My references are not cryptic. All you have to do is go to the web sites and enter one party's name. It will always bring up a result. The only area where it becomes problematic is when the government is the party. Searching for the United States or any states brings up too many results.
If you recall from reading Hein, a three prong test set forthi in Lemon v. Kiurtzman, and modified by Agostini v. Felton, is applicable to all Establishment Clause violations. (there are cases describing the details of the elements in detail):
1. Whether the statute has a secular legislative purpose. (here, you intent, as evidenced by your posts on this forum is to target Jehovah's Witnesses).
2. Whehter its principal or primary effect impermissibly advances or inhibits religion, (clearly inhibits) and
3. Does the law result in indoctrination, define its recipients by reference to religion, or create an excessive entanglement? (Your proposal would result in uber excessive entangelement of government in religion.)
I am not a Supreme Court justice in private life, therefore, I am merely reporting the result, not creating it.
Excluding all religions from tax exemption would not present a const'l problem. It poses politcal problems. There is growing support. Exemption favors religion and is onerous to nonreligious tax payers who end up paying more taxes b/c religious groups are exempted. Society has changed greatly since these exemptions were granted. I do not understand your insistence on a legislative solution that can never exist when several avenues of redress that are possible do exist.
Hi Band on the Run, Because of your personal attacks towards me and misinterpretations of the White House petition, it is becoming very obvious to me that you have some hidden agenda that I do not believe is based on legal expertise.
Based on your written comments, if you interpret Supreme Court decisions the same as you misinterpret the White House petition that I am promoting, then I question your self-professed legal expertise. The White House petition asks the Obama Administration to “Actively encourage Congress to revise USC Title 26 § 501 (and possibly § 170) so that all tax exempt organizations must promote freedom of religion and speech to its members and employees. . . . ” The White House petition does not specifically target religions. Also, White House petitions are non-binding, non-legal documents that the Obama Administration created to solicit comments from constituents that are limited to 850 characters. If you would like to learn about the White House process, please visit https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/how-why/introduction .
Although White House petitions are non-binding, I am trying to utiltize the process to generate popular support for revising USC Title 26 § 501 (and possibly § 170) to encourage Congress to clearly define public policy to place more limitations on all tax exempt organizations.
Since 850 characters are insufficient to write a law about such a complex and emotional topic and I do not have that constitutional authority, Congress would be responsible for clearly defining public policy that tax exempt organizations must promote freedom of religion and speech to its members and employees and authorize the IRS to promulgate regulations, investigate complaints, and enforce legislation. If you read previous threads that I have written such as http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/226465/1/Its-Back-Round-2 and in threads that are referenced in the first post, you might realize that I have described a hypothetical way for the IRS to enforce a law that is inspired by this petition that would not be declared unconstitutional by using an Establishment Clause or Free Exercise Clause argument.
BOB JONES UNIVERSITY, GOLDSBORO CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS, INC. v. UNITED STATES. 461 U.S. 574 (1983) is so much more applicable to a law inspired by the White House petition than the four cases that you cited. In Bob Jones, the government successfully argued that public policy outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on Free Exercise rights (see quote box below). Establishment Clause arguments are usually used to challenge providing tax exemptions or support to religious organizations.
Excerpt from Chief Justice Burger's Opinion of the Court in BOB JONES UNIVERSITY, GOLDSBORO CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS, INC. v. UNITED STATES. 461 U.S. 574 (1983)
"This Court has long held the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to be an absolute prohibition against governmental regulation of religious beliefs, Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 , 219 (1972); Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 , 402 (1963); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 , 303 (1940). As interpreted by this Court, moreover, the Free Exercise Clause provides substantial protection for lawful conduct grounded in religious belief, see Wisconsin v. Yoder, supra, at 220; Thomas v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U.S. 707 (1981); Sherbert v. Verner, supra, at 402-403. However,
[n]ot all burdens on religion are unconstitutional. . . . The state may justify a limitation on religious liberty by showing that it is essential to accomplish an overriding governmental interest."
Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,
Robert