Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

quote:Kind of like Poll Taxes were perfectly legal once, right?

WRONG.  Poll taxes were shown to have a discriminatory intent and a discriminatory effect.  No such argument is available when restrictions are put on both sides and have no detrimental effects on one side over the other.  Very simply, there is no case here.

You appear to dislike the entire notion of free speech.  What you want, is targeted speech.  That is to say, the "NO" side in this issue should not have to follow the rules because the "YES" side has more money.  However, you neglect to realize that spending money on signs/TV/Radio/billboards is also an exercise of free speech.  Full circle - their free speech is not as important as yours.

Likewise, your "Banana Republic" argument is a gross hyperbole.  Such an argument would be prudent in some scenarios, but when there is no detrimental intent (especially since that ordinance was passed LONG before this debate came up) nor effect, it losses in a hurry.  When you can still express your views on the internet, in the paper, in your yard, on the street corner, at city meetings, with placards, on billboards, TV, radio, fliers, handouts, and every other way BUT placing signs on public property and those rules apply equally to all sides... then your argument becomes completely, totally, and "no way this even gets to court" baseless.  

Keep talking about topics you are ignorant on, it really strengthens your argument...

CF, we're still off-topic, but maybe this will help explain the law to a lawyer:

Because of the FACTS of our political arena in the Banana Republic of Tulsa, the sign ordinance has a DISPARATE IMPACT on the free speech rights of any grass roots campaign.

How's that for an angle?

On Legality:

Poll taxes were PERFECTLY legal until the SUCO decided they were discriminatory, and therefore illegal.  Until that decision, they were perfectly legal.

It was perfectly legal that human property must be returned to its lawful owner, according to the SUCO in the Dred Scott decision.  1854?

In Plessey v. Ferguson, the SUCO ruled it was perfectly legal to have two separate school systems, one black and one white.  1896?

In 1944, the SUCO ruled it was perfectly legal to incarcerate U.S. Citizens of Japanese descent without due process.

Legal?

All those things were perfectly legal.  

Until someone decided they were no longer perfectly legal.

And, Banana Republic of Tulsa, fits perfectly.

You must be drinking the MetroChamberPots Tax-Me-More Kool-Aid.  

Uh, maybe you're actually MIXING the Kool-Aid?

Is Cannon Fodder really Big Jim Orbison, distinguished local County Government Rain-Maker Attorney?  

By the way, I'm planning to Copyright a Tulsa T-Shirt design; should be out by Xmas.  

Toying with the design of Bill Clinton smoking a banana saying "I love the Banana Republic of T-Town".

Mayor Chatty Kathy will be kneeling on the backside of the T-shirt, as if in prayer for Higher Taxes.

[]

[carltonplace]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Friendly Bear:

I am a local attorney, and there is no issue here to be taken to court.

Governments at the Federal, State and local level are free to decide where proper venues for public speech are.  Some areas have been set aside by the courts as special vantages of public speech that can only be encumbered in certain ways/circumstances (for instance, you can stand on a street corner and protest, until he interferes with traffic or gets so large you need police protection - then you need a permit).  In forums of public speech the government must be official neutral and allow all aspects to be represented.

If government could not restrict speech in anyway, the courthouse lawn would be strewn with signs for everything to such an extent that they would do no good.  The inside of every governmental press conference, display board, or courtroom would be awash with shouts and pleas for whatever the political moment called for.  Frankly, it would be anarchy.

In between the two is the way things actually operate.  The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that local governments can place reasonable restrictions on speech.  Making it illegal to place ANY SIGNS on the public right away is a neutral and reasonable restriction on political and commercial speech.  People are still free to place signs in their yards, their business, billboard space, or to stand with a placard.  

You have no basis for your argument and apparently have no background in constitutional law.

I spent most of this year in the Philippines (during the election cycle) and I've seen the chaos you describe. If there was a place to hang a sign (walls, windows, park fences, fountains, bridges, bill boards, cars, dogs, little kids) then that place would have so many overlapping signs you could not make sense of it.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by carltonplace

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Friendly Bear:

I am a local attorney, and there is no issue here to be taken to court.

Governments at the Federal, State and local level are free to decide where proper venues for public speech are.  Some areas have been set aside by the courts as special vantages of public speech that can only be encumbered in certain ways/circumstances (for instance, you can stand on a street corner and protest, until he interferes with traffic or gets so large you need police protection - then you need a permit).  In forums of public speech the government must be official neutral and allow all aspects to be represented.

If government could not restrict speech in anyway, the courthouse lawn would be strewn with signs for everything to such an extent that they would do no good.  The inside of every governmental press conference, display board, or courtroom would be awash with shouts and pleas for whatever the political moment called for.  Frankly, it would be anarchy.

In between the two is the way things actually operate.  The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that local governments can place reasonable restrictions on speech.  Making it illegal to place ANY SIGNS on the public right away is a neutral and reasonable restriction on political and commercial speech.  People are still free to place signs in their yards, their business, billboard space, or to stand with a placard.  

You have no basis for your argument and apparently have no background in constitutional law.

I spent most of this year in the Philippines (during the election cycle) and I've seen the chaos you describe. If there was a place to hang a sign (walls, windows, park fences, fountains, bridges, bill boards, cars, dogs, little kids) then that place would have so many overlapping signs you could not make sense of it.

A fledgling, recently minted DEMOCRACY in action.  I love it.  

Go PHILIPPINES!  We love you.

Tulsa's political scenery more closely resembles their predecessor regime:  

The Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos Crony Capitalism.

Many, many similarities.......

[:O]

[cannon_fodder]

So your stellar legal argument would be:

"Other things used to be legal too, but now they arent, so indiscriminate restricting of signs should be illegal."

Never mind the decades of pesky case law on the issue or the very clear tests associated with it.  Never mind RECENT cases in this regard.  Since some things used to be legal and no longer are, all things that are currently legal should become illegal.  Brilliant legal argument that happens to apply to everything ever done by anyone...

and no, I am not associated with the firm Riggs, Abney, Neal, Turpen, Orbison and Lewis.  Clearly I have connections to that firm, everyone who has ever thought about practicing law in Tulsa knows at least several attorneys in the largest firm in Oklahoma.  I'm but a humble business lawyer who happens to know infinitely more about this topic than you, yet you persist.

Again, this is content neutral restrictions on the location of anonymous speech. Here is a summary with annotations to some case law, have fun:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/20.html#1

[carltonplace]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by carltonplace

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Friendly Bear:

I am a local attorney, and there is no issue here to be taken to court.

Governments at the Federal, State and local level are free to decide where proper venues for public speech are.  Some areas have been set aside by the courts as special vantages of public speech that can only be encumbered in certain ways/circumstances (for instance, you can stand on a street corner and protest, until he interferes with traffic or gets so large you need police protection - then you need a permit).  In forums of public speech the government must be official neutral and allow all aspects to be represented.

If government could not restrict speech in anyway, the courthouse lawn would be strewn with signs for everything to such an extent that they would do no good.  The inside of every governmental press conference, display board, or courtroom would be awash with shouts and pleas for whatever the political moment called for.  Frankly, it would be anarchy.

In between the two is the way things actually operate.  The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that local governments can place reasonable restrictions on speech.  Making it illegal to place ANY SIGNS on the public right away is a neutral and reasonable restriction on political and commercial speech.  People are still free to place signs in their yards, their business, billboard space, or to stand with a placard.  

You have no basis for your argument and apparently have no background in constitutional law.

I spent most of this year in the Philippines (during the election cycle) and I've seen the chaos you describe. If there was a place to hang a sign (walls, windows, park fences, fountains, bridges, bill boards, cars, dogs, little kids) then that place would have so many overlapping signs you could not make sense of it.

A fledgling, recently minted DEMOCRACY in action.  I love it.  

Go PHILIPPINES!  We love you.

Tulsa's political scenery more closely resembles their predecessor regime:  

The Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos Crony Capitalism.

Many, many similarities.......

[:O]

Way off topic
I love the Filipinos (mahal kita kaibigan), but their government is corrupt, candidates are routinely killed by opponents rather than letting the public decide at the polls, election commission buildings are mysteriously burned and there is a general sense of lawlessness that leaves the voter disenchanted.

If you could see a picture of candidate posters there, you'd be happy that we have these simple laws in place.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

So your stellar legal argument would be:

"Other things used to be legal too, but now they arent, so indiscriminate restricting of signs should be illegal."

Never mind the decades of pesky case law on the issue or the very clear tests associated with it.  Never mind RECENT cases in this regard.  Since some things used to be legal and no longer are, all things that are currently legal should become illegal.  Brilliant legal argument that happens to apply to everything ever done by anyone...

and no, I am not associated with the firm Riggs, Abney, Neal, Turpen, Orbison and Lewis.  Clearly I have connections to that firm, everyone who has ever thought about practicing law in Tulsa knows at least several attorneys in the largest firm in Oklahoma.  I'm but a humble business lawyer who happens to know infinitely more about this topic than you, yet you persist.

Again, this is content neutral restrictions on the location of anonymous speech. Here is a summary with annotations to some case law, have fun:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/20.html#1

Well, something is Perfectly Legal until some judge decides it's illegal.  

And, vice versa.

You are right that no amount of case law, precedent or tradition makes one iota of difference when a judge wants to change the law.

The Supreme Court does it starting every October.  

And, I'm sure that each of the rulings I mentioned:  Dred Scott, Plessey, Japanese Internment, etc. cited volumes of precedent, case law, etc., etc., etc., and were all PERFECTLY LEGAL.

Until someone decided they were not perfectly legal.

Note to Attorney:  There is no law; there is only what a judge says. Today.  

Witness the recent SUCO ruling on Eminent Domain, turning 200 years of precedent on its head.  But definitely a "business-friendly" ruling the Development Community could not have imagined in their wildest dreams.

While it's real fun discussing the illegality of the City Restrictive Sign Ordinance, I really, really, really would like to get this thread back on the topic of the Silence of our local Church Leaders regarding the morality of the proposed Kaiser River Tax.

Pretty please?

[cannon_fodder]

No, because you keep misstating not only the nature of the current law, but the entire legal system of the United States.  Your theory on this legal question is based solely on the following logical paradigm:

Things that are legal should be made illegal.
It is currently legal to restrict signs.
Restriction of signs should be made illegal.


That is the worst bit of legal reasoning since the Chewbacca defense.

You fail to realize that the cases you listed were over ruled decades, sometimes a century after they were decided.  At which point an entire volume of new case law had emerged making is possible for the court to reverse itself.  The decisions you mention had an effect on keeping our nation together and were involved with a civil war that left millions dead.  The right to OWN other people...

and you're whining about not being able to put whatever you want wherever you want.  The courts have established tests for given areas, political speech in a public forum is a very heavily covered area.  Clearly you not only know nothing about it, you have no interest in learning.

Not too mention your analysis of case law is horribly wrong:

• The Japanese Internment was never legally over turned.  It was a special power issued in a vague decree.  When the war was over their was suits to gain compensation, but the practice itself was never deemed illegal.



• Dred Scott was never overruled.  The underlying  laws of the United States were changed, namely the 13th and 14th Amendments.
 


• Plessy v. Ferguson was over ruled some 60 years after it was decided.  The court determined that was ample time to try "separate but equal" and that the doctrine of separate but equal had failed.   Having watched that policy fail for 60 years and etching away at the doctrine for 10 years the Court dictated a change in policy admitting its past mistakes (insomuch as the court does so).

So, in the instance of the signs...  what new amendments have changed the game?  What policy has failed?  What case law in this regard is so well aged and ripe for change?  In what case law has the court laid the groundwork for a reversal?

The answer to all of the above is NONE. Since you have chosen to continue the conversation without following my educational advice I shall attempt to further educate you:

First of all, a public median is NOT a public forum.  "[T]he First Amendment does not guarantee access to property simply because it is owned or controlled by the government." United States Postal Service v. Council of Greenburgh Civic donkey'ns, 453 U.S. 114, 129  (1981). Thus, "[t]he crucial question is whether the manner of expression is basically compatible with the normal activity of a particular place at a particular time."  Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 116  (1972). The normal use and custom of a street median is NOT as a venue for signs and such activity is arguably contrary to the purpose of transportation.  As such, you have ZERO right to speak there.

If, for some reason, you wanted to argue that a street median is in fact meant as a forum for public speech the court has laid out a stricter test for such restrictions:

1) A government actor may restrict speech in a pubic forum subject to strict scrutiny if:
a) it is justified without reference to the content or subject matter of the speech
b)serves a significant governmental interest
c) and leaves ample alternative channels for communication.

Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288  (1984) (in which a sleep-in protest was banned from a public park in which camping was not allowed). Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, 115 S. Ct. 2510 (1995) (regulations on speech must be content neutral). Heffron v. ISKCON, 452 U.S. 640 (1981) .

In this instance, the law is clearly content neutral and as I have pointed our previously there are more than ample alternatives.  One might surmise your best point of attack is on governmental interest.  I'll pretend you know what you are doing and decided to attack that aspect.

However, it is still likely to fail in that public safety and convenience have been deemed significant governmental interests.  Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 554 -55 (1965).  Restrictions on free speech in, around, or near roadways are routinely upheld as a hindrance to the PRIMARY function of the road.  Having people dart in and out of traffic to place signs is dangerous, arguably encouraging drivers to read an ever growing supply of competing signs is dangerous.  Not to mention the inconvenience to residents of such a gross display in what one strives to keep as an attractive community.

So even if some nut job thought a median was constructed to serve as a public forum for speech, the argument would probably STILL fail.

I have given you all the tools and citations to properly construct a legal argument in this regard.  I linked to a cheat sheet on it above.  I have attempted to explain the failures in your logic. If you wish to continue a discussion on a legal topic with a person educated in the law... I suggest you take my advice and educated yourself.

At this point, you are digging the hole ever deeper and making yourself out to be completely without substance.  As obtuse as this topic was to begin with, your "what would Jesus do" argument was stronger than your current position.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

No, because you keep misstating not only the nature of the current law, but the entire legal system of the United States.  Your theory on this legal question is based solely on the following logical paradigm:

Things that are legal should be made illegal.
It is currently legal to restrict signs.
Restriction of signs should be made illegal.


That is the worst bit of legal reasoning since the Chewbacca defense.

You fail to realize that the cases you listed were over ruled decades, sometimes a century after they were decided.  At which point an entire volume of new case law had emerged making is possible for the court to reverse itself.  The decisions you mention had an effect on keeping our nation together and were involved with a civil war that left millions dead.  The right to OWN other people...

and you're whining about not being able to put whatever you want wherever you want.  The courts have established tests for given areas, political speech in a public forum is a very heavily covered area.  Clearly you not only know nothing about it, you have no interest in learning.

Not too mention your analysis of case law is horribly wrong:

• The Japanese Internment was never legally over turned.  It was a special power issued in a vague decree.  When the war was over their was suits to gain compensation, but the practice itself was never deemed illegal.



• Dred Scott was never overruled.  The underlying  laws of the United States were changed, namely the 13th and 14th Amendments.
 


• Plessy v. Ferguson was over ruled some 60 years after it was decided.  The court determined that was ample time to try "separate but equal" and that the doctrine of separate but equal had failed.   Having watched that policy fail for 60 years and etching away at the doctrine for 10 years the Court dictated a change in policy admitting its past mistakes (insomuch as the court does so).

So, in the instance of the signs...  what new amendments have changed the game?  What policy has failed?  What case law in this regard is so well aged and ripe for change?  In what case law has the court laid the groundwork for a reversal?

The answer to all of the above is NONE. Since you have chosen to continue the conversation without following my educational advice I shall attempt to further educate you:

First of all, a public median is NOT a public forum.  "[T]he First Amendment does not guarantee access to property simply because it is owned or controlled by the government." United States Postal Service v. Council of Greenburgh Civic donkey'ns, 453 U.S. 114, 129  (1981). Thus, "[t]he crucial question is whether the manner of expression is basically compatible with the normal activity of a particular place at a particular time."  Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 116  (1972). The normal use and custom of a street median is NOT as a venue for signs and such activity is arguably contrary to the purpose of transportation.  As such, you have ZERO right to speak there.

If, for some reason, you wanted to argue that a street median is in fact meant as a forum for public speech the court has laid out a stricter test for such restrictions:

1) A government actor may restrict speech in a pubic forum subject to strict scrutiny if:
a) it is justified without reference to the content or subject matter of the speech
b)serves a significant governmental interest
c) and leaves ample alternative channels for communication.

Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288  (1984) (in which a sleep-in protest was banned from a public park in which camping was not allowed). Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, 115 S. Ct. 2510 (1995) (regulations on speech must be content neutral). Heffron v. ISKCON, 452 U.S. 640 (1981) .

In this instance, the law is clearly content neutral and as I have pointed our previously there are more than ample alternatives.  One might surmise your best point of attack is on governmental interest.  I'll pretend you know what you are doing and decided to attack that aspect.

However, it is still likely to fail in that public safety and convenience have been deemed significant governmental interests.  Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 554 -55 (1965).  Restrictions on free speech in, around, or near roadways are routinely upheld as a hindrance to the PRIMARY function of the road.  Having people dart in and out of traffic to place signs is dangerous, arguably encouraging drivers to read an ever growing supply of competing signs is dangerous.  Not to mention the inconvenience to residents of such a gross display in what one strives to keep as an attractive community.

So even if some nut job thought a median was constructed to serve as a public forum for speech, the argument would probably STILL fail.

I have given you all the tools and citations to properly construct a legal argument in this regard.  I linked to a cheat sheet on it above.  I have attempted to explain the failures in your logic. If you wish to continue a discussion on a legal topic with a person educated in the law... I suggest you take my advice and educated yourself.

At this point, you are digging the hole ever deeper and making yourself out to be completely without substance.  As obtuse as this topic was to begin with, your "what would Jesus do" argument was stronger than your current position.

Very expansive reply.

I hope these are not Billable Hours, at least for me?

And actually, it was YOU, not me who first asked the "What would Jesus do question"

Furthermore, your whole foundation if wrong.  

Where did I say that things that are legal should be made illegal?

No where.

In all the examples that I provided, the point is:

All those things were perfectly legal at one time, and for a long time.

Slavery.  

Segregation/Separate But Equal.  

Internment of CITIZENS without due process.

Until someone decided they were no longer perfectly legal.

If I sue, I'll be sure and not hire you.

My legal foundation still holds:

There is NO LAW.  There is only what a judge says. Today.  

And, morever, in the Banana Republic of Tulsa, there is DEFINITELY no Law, only what the crony judges say.

Dear Judge Jane Wiseman, and her 5-minute long 2003 deliberation before issuing an ORAL ruling that the Log-Rolled Vision 2025 Ballot was actually not a Log-Rolled Ballot.  

After her ruling in 1995 that the County was using a Log-Rolled ballot, in which dissimilar ballot issues were placed on one ballot.  Hence, the cited "logrolling" violation of our State Constitution, which prohibits the practice.

Subsequently rewarded by appointment to the State Court of Appeals, for services rendered the local power establishment.





[}:)]

[Renaissance]

I really cannot wait until this vote is done.  Then we can have our forum back.

Please, don't feed the trolls bears.

[Steve]

To answer the original question with my own opinion:

Church leaders should be silent on the "river tax," any other tax, or political election.  If they have indeed been silent on the river tax, then they are doing the right thing.

Churches and church leaders should concern themselves with matters of religious faith only, and have no business delving into secular government matters.  Unless of course they want to forfeit their tax-exempt status.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Steve

To answer the original question with my own opinion:

Church leaders should be silent on the "river tax," any other tax, or political election.  If they have indeed been silent on the river tax, then they are doing the right thing.

Churches and church leaders should concern themselves with matters of religious faith only, and have no business delving into secular government matters.  Unless of course they want to forfeit their tax-exempt status.

An abundance of church leaders concern themselves with the Question:

What constitutes leading to a Moral Life?

Correct?

Then, it follows what acts do not conform to living a moral life?

Would attempting to take more of the hard-earned money from Tulsa County's struggling families, literally take groceries from their table, so that it will be used to line the pockets of a selected few heavy construction companies, architects, engineers, attorneys, accountants and Bond Underwriters and associated connected cronies, be a MORAL ACT?

The Answer is obvious:

NO.

And, speaking out on the morality of a proposed TAX would not cause the church to forfeit their tax-exempt status.

They are not endorsing a particular candidate.

They frequently agitate for or against Ballot issues, like Liquor by the Drink, Lottery, expanded gambling, and abortion rights.

They can do so freely as it relates to their core religious beliefs.

[:O]

[RecycleMichael]

Would starting a war that also lines the pockets of campaign contributors and cabinet members be a moral act?

Where was your outrage against billion dollar no-bid contracts from the company that the vice-president used to lead?

At least this time we get to vote on whether we want the money spent.

[rwarn17588]

I think, RM, that you nailed it: a certain bear as selective outrage.

[}:)]

I'd rather have a real bear around. At least it wouldn't write tedious posts and take the dubious mantra that if you spout falsehoods and innuendo enough times that they somehow become true.

For all of F.B.'s outage, I bet he/she doesn't even vote in every election.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

Would starting a war that also lines the pockets of campaign contributors and cabinet members be a moral act?

Where was your outrage against billion dollar no-bid contracts from the company that the vice-president used to lead?

At least this time we get to vote on whether we want the money spent.

Of course, those would not be moral acts.

Feel free to post another Topic on the subject of War Profiteering.  

I think the Multinational Oil Companies have also profited mighty handsomely since 9-11, followed by the start of the Iraq War.

Probably just a coincidence....

[:O]

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

I really cannot wait until this vote is done.  Then we can have our forum back.

Please, don't feed the trolls bears.

Yet you posted, nonetheless?

Curious?