That the Congress can regulate doesn't say to me that the several states cannot. Where there is a vacuum in federal law or where federal statutes are unconstitutional, the states can pass what they think are protective laws. That's my view.
The commerce clause is being used to prevent state and local governments from preventing fracking (another Dick Cheney/Halliburton poisoned apple to humanity) for instance. So, one must be careful not to support overly "neoliberal" interpretations of the clause.
I've seen many cases where federal laws reach into states and do great harm and based upon stretching the commerce clause into something that really suggests that the federal government can do anything it wants by appealing to the "six degrees of separation." I've never seen it put that way, but that's my view.
It's being put forth to support Obamacare when what we need is single-payer. It was used to give California a hard time when CA wanted higher mileage standards to cut down on CA air pollution. "Free markets" are fine after not poisoning the national, state, and local wells.
I am definitely not a laissez-faire capitalist. The Cato Institute, for instance, is a laissez-faire capitalist/libertarian think tank that received a great deal of funding from the Koch family. Think about it.
I'm really a one-worlder but not a banker or for coercion but rather voluntary, universal repentance. I have been a one-worlder since at least the mid-to-late 1960's. However, obviously, I'm opposed to unbridled capitalism.
So, qualify your positions to not let people corner you into taking one side where the position cuts both ways. There are commerce arguments that don't run afoul of the overreach that grants the Koch brothers free rein or reign.
I'm sure you realize that the Koch's ideology is nearly as self-centered as it gets. One of the brothers hardly gave a dime until HE got sick. Then they discovered they could give to the causes they like that actually reinforce their own empire building at the direct and negative expense of the "99%." It was also tricky PR and took away some of the ammunition against them used by those who didn't know how to respond to greedy, anti-environmentalist philanthropists.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
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.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)