quote:

ORIGINAL: EternalHoH

Anytime a pastor of a church gets this involved in politics, that church should lose its tax exempt status.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EternalHoH

Anytime a pastor of a church gets this involved in politics, that church should lose its tax exempt status.

quote:


the government cannot "establish" a religion, which goes without saying neither can they uproot one, (muslims), however religions and churches have full rights to be involved in politics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Why should they be exempted at all?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I just noticed the typo in my last post so don't tell me I can't spell.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EternalHoH

Nobody is trying to establish or uproot anything.

Tax exempt is a privilege, not a right. Churches that stay out of politics should be extended the privilege.  The purpose of a church is to minister the words of God (or whoever your religious Icon is), not the word of Jefferson or any other political, non-religious figure.

They can still exist. Nobody is saying they can't exist.   They just get taxed, just like any other 'business'.

If they want to get involved and and try to change the government, they also should get the opportunity to fund said government. If they choose to keep their focus on the ministry, and stay out of the political arena, then they should be exempted from funding the government.

quote:

This is the senate approved law dictionary btw!)

FRANCHISE. A special privilege conferred by government on individuals, and which does not belong to the citizens of the country generally by common right Ang. & A. Corp. i 4; Abbott v. Refining Co., 4 Neb. 416, 420.

A certain privilege conferred by grant from government and vested in individuals. 3 Kent 458.

A royal privilege or branch of the king's prerogative subsisting in the hands of a subject Finch i. 164; 2 Bla. Com. 37; 3 Cruise, Dig. 278; Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet. (U. S.) 595, 10 L. Ed. 274; State v. Coal Co., 36 W. Va. 802, 15 S. E. 1000, 17 L. R. A. ixsS.

Maitland (Domesday and Beyond 43) dnds In the history of early English tenures a universality of oppressive services which literally made life a burden to the average land-bolder, considers the first we of the terms "liberty" and "franchise" to be in expression of the relief of the possessor from some part of this burden. He says: "Lastly In our thirteenth century we learn that privileges and exceptional Immunities are 'liberties' and 'franchises.* What is our deSnltion of a liberty, a franchise? A portion of royal power in the hands of. a subject. In Henry III.'a day we do not say that the Earl of Chester is a freer man, more of a liber homo, <-- Hey ron new word for you! LOL than is the Earl of Gloucester, but we do say that he has more, greater, higher liberties."

The right or privilege of being a corporation, and of doing such things, and such things only, as are authorized by the corporation's charter. Fietsam v. Hay, 122 111. 293, 13 N. E. 501, 3 Am. St. Rep. 492.

"The word franchise is generally used to designate a right or privilege conferred by law. What is called 'the franchise of forming a corporation,' is really but an exemption from the general rule of the common law prohibiting the formation of corporations.

The right of forming a corporation, and of acting in a corporate capacity under the general Incorporation laws, can be called a franchise only in the sense in which the right of forming a limited partnership, or of executing a conveyance of land by deed is a franchise." Horton, C. J., in State v. Canal Co., 40 Kan. 96, 19 Pac. 349, 10 Am. St. Rep. 166.

It is a privilege emanating from the SOVEREIGN power of the STATE,   (meaning OVER the subject citizens reversed from what people think it is) owing its existence to a grant or, as at common law, to prescription, which presupposes a grant, and vested in individuals or a body politic something not belonging to the citizen of common right. Hazelton Boiler Co. v. BoUer Co., 137 111. 231, 28 N. E. 248.

Commenting on Blackstone's definition, Thompson says: "It has been well observed that, under our American systems of government and laws, this definition is not strictly correct; since our franchises spring from contracts between the sovereign power and private citizens, made upon a valuable consideration, for purposes of public benefit as well as of Individual advantage." 4 Thomp. Corp. § 5335.  Really? coulda damn well fooled me! Since when?  the 14th says you are a cit regardless if you want it or not!  This is the senate approved law dictionary btw!)

There are two franchises, distinct in their nature, and yet governed by substantially the same rules as to grant and exercise, which may be enjoyed by a corporation. One is the franchise of being or existing as a corporation, that Is, possessing a unity and continuity of existence, though composed of an aggregate of changing members; the other is the exercise of rights, like the right of eminent domain or the partial appropriation of public property by exclusive use, as in ferries. Either of these franchises is a branch of sovereignty. 1 Bouv. Inst. 1690; Adams Exp. Co. v. Ohio State Auditor, 166 U. S. 185, 17 Sup. Ct. 604, 41 L. Ed. 965.

"Franchise" means the right of a corporation to exist as such, which right does not partake of the incidents of property, and it also means the right of an existing corporation to carry on a particular enterprise, which right is property; Blackrock Copper Min. & Mill. Co. v. Tlngey. 34 Utah 369. 98 Pac. 180, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 255, 131 Am. St. Rep. 850.

"Corporate franchises are legal estates vested in the corporation itself as soon as it is in esse. They are not mere naked powers granted to the corporation, but powers coupled with an interest which vest in the corporation, upon the possession of its franchise, and whatever may be thought of the corporators, it cannot be denied that the corporation itself has a legal interest in such franchise." Society for Savings v. Coite, 6 Wall. (U. S.) 594, 006, 18 L. Ed. 897.

A franchise to be a corporation, however, is distinct from a franchise to maintain and operate a railway; the latter may be mortgaged, without the former, and pass to a purchaser at foreclosure sale; Memphis & L. R. Co. v. Commissioners, 112 U. S. 009, 5 Sup. Ct 299, 28 L. Ed. 837.

The grant of letters patent for an invention is said to be a franchise; (1801) 2 Q. B. 263; and so is a charter of incorporation from the state; State v. Coal Co., 30 W. Va. S02, 15 S. E. 1000, 17 L. R. A. 3&">.

To be a franchise, the right possessed must be such as cannot be exercised without the express permission of the sovereign power— a privilege or immunity of a public nature which cannot be legally exercised without legislative grant; State v. Mfg. Co., 40 Minn. 213, 41 N. W. 1020, 3 L. R. A. 510; Dike v. State, 38 Minn. 300, 38 N. W. 95.  Last time I checked that was the legislature people not included!

In a case already cited it is said that a franchise, or the right to be and act as an artificial body, is vested in the individuals who compose the corporation, and not in the corporation itself; Fietsam v. Hay, 122 111. 293, 13 N. E. 501, 3 Am. St. Rep. 492.

So according to some osama bin laden had no rights under any law because he did not belong to a democrappic gang with some imagined protection that was SANCTIONED BY SOME SOVEREIGN!!!

Its so easy to keep the power with the powerful when you control the law aint it?

anyway I am bored with this see how many more interesting words you can pick from this shit mess as it traversed time.

"But this," it is said, "is an imperfect statement of the true conclusion,—which is, that a primary franchise, that is to say, the franchise of being a corporation, vests in the individuals who compose the corporation; while those secondary franchises which are vendible by the corporation, necessarily, and for that reason alone, must be deemed to vest in the corporation. However, judicial theory is so confused on the subject, that proceedings by information in the nature of a quo warranto, to vacate the franchises of corporations, are sometimes brought against the individuals who compose the corporation, and somellmes against the corporation itself." 4 Thomp. Corp. § 5337.

Franchises are only grantable by the sovereign power, and In the U. S. they are usually held by corporations created for the purpose, and can be held only under legislative grant; In re Fay, 15 Pick. (Mass.) 243: Chicago City Ry. Co. v. People, 73 111. 541; Bank of Augusta v. Earle. 13 Pet (U. S.) 519, 10 L. Ed. 274; People v. Ins. Co., 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 338, 8 Am. Dec. 243; Spotswood v. Morris, 12 Idaho 360, 85 Pac. 1094, 6 I,. R. A. (N. S.) 665; and may be accompanied "with such conditions as its legislature may judge most befitting to its Interest and policy; Home Ins. Co. v. New York, 134 U. S. 594, 10 Sup. Ct 593, 33 L. Ed. 1025; Horn Silver Min. Co. v. New York, 143 U. S. 305, 12 Sup. Ct 403, 36 U Ed. 104.

quote:

In the early years of the 19th century, as banks and corporations began to flex their political muscles, he announced that: “I hope we shall crush… in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."


“May (July 4) be to the world, what I believe it will be -- to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all -- the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. That form (of government) which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.”

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.        Thomas Jefferson, 3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

Where a corporation is created with power to use the streets of a city, upon the consent of the city, and by ordinance such consent is granted, the grant is a license and not a franchise; City of Chicago v. Tel. Co., 230 111. 157, 82 N. E. 607, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 10S4, 12 Ann. Cas. 109; so of a telephone company; Dakota Cent. Tel. Co. v. City of Huron, 105 Fed. 220.

The state is presumed to grant corporate franchises in the public interest and to intend that they shall be exercised through the proper officers and agencies of the corporation, and does not contemplate that corporate powers will be delegated to others. Any conduct which destroys their functions, or maims or cripples their separate activity, by taking away the right to freely and Independently exercise the functions of their franchise, is contrary to a sound public poliicy; McCutcheon v. Capsule Co., 71 Fed. 787,

19 C. C. A. 108, 31 L. R. A. 415.

Persons or corporations enjoying public franchises and engaged in a public employment owe a duty to the public; Gibbs v. Gas Co., 130 U. S. 390, 9 Sup. Ct. 553, 32 U. Ed. 979; or to individuals who, in compliance with established customs or rules, make demands upon them for the beneficial use of the privileges and advantages due to the public by reason of the aid so given by public authority; Coy v. Gas Co., 146 Ind. 055, 46 N. E. 17, 36 L. R. A. 535, where the failure of a natural gas company to supply gas to a consumer was held to be a tort as well as a breach of contract

The grant of a franchise by the legislature Is a contract and cannot be resumed by the state or Its benefits impaired or diminished without the consent of the parties; Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat (U. S.) 519, 4 L. Ed. 629; The Binghamton Bridge, 3 Wall. (U. S.) 51, 18 L. Ed. 187; 3 Kent Com. 458; it is within the protection of that clause of the United States constitution which forbids the states from impairing the obligation of contracts; Union Bank of Tennessee v. State, 9 Yerg. (Tenn.) 490; Oliver v. R. Co., 30 Ark. 128; St Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. v. Loftin, id. 693; but this does not apply to mere personal privileges to members of a corporation, such as the exemption of a servant of such body from militia duty, or serving on juries, etc.; Neely v. State, 4 Lea (Tenn.) 316; such an exemption was held in this case unconstitutional; contra, Johnson v. State, 88 Ala. 176, 7 South. 253, where such an exemption was held part of the franchise granted to the corporation'. and it may become a vested right which cannot be taken away by subsequent legislation; Ex parte Goodln, 67 Mo. 637 (overruling In re Powell, 5 Mo. App. 220). Franchises (of public service corporations) are property; Willcox v. Gas Co., 212 U. S. 19, 29 Sup. Ct 192, 53 L. Ed. 382, 15 Ann. Cas. 1034. See Impairing The Obligation Of Contracts.

By the constitution or laws of many states, charters can only be granted subject to amendment or repeal. As to the power of the legislature in such cases, see Mayor, etc., of Worcester v. Norwich, 109 Mass. 103; Railroad Com'rs v. R. Co., 63 Me. 269, 18 Am. Rep. 208; Rodemacher v. R. Co., 41 la. 297, 20 Am. Rep. 592; Hamilton Gas Light Co. v. Hamilton, 146 U. S. 258, 13 Sup. Ct 90, 36 L Ed. 963; but municipal franchises are entirely under the control of the legislature; Oooley. Const Lim. 336; Baltimore & S. R. Co. v. Xesbit, 10 How. (U. S.) 402, 13 L. Ed. 469; Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113, 24 L. Ed. 77; Georgia R. & Banking Co. v. Smith, 128 C. S. 174, 9 Sup. Ct. 47, 32 L. Ed. 377.


Franchises are held subject to the exercise of the right of eminent domain.

See Eminent Domain; Ferry.

The franchises which pass by a judicial sale of a railroad and franchises are those which are essential to the operation of the corporation but do not Include such special privileges as an exemption from taxation; Morgan v. Louisiana, 93 U. S. 217, 23 L. Ed. 860. A corporation having public duties cannot transfer a portion of them; Board of Com'rs of Tippecanoe Co. v. R. Co., 50 Ind. 85: but the attempt to divide the franchise only concerns the public and cannot be objected to by a rival company; Oakland R. Co. T. R. Co., 45 Cal. 365, 13 Am. Rep. 181. An irrigation company may make a valid conveyance of all its property and right of way; State v. Canal Co., 40 Kan. 96, 19 Pac. 349, 10 Am. St. Rep. 166; Martin v. Zellerbach, 38 Cal. 300, 99 Am. Dec. 365.

A state has power to tax the franchises of a corporation at a different rate from tangible property In the state, so far as the United States constitution is concerned; Coulter v. R. Co., 196 U. S. 599, 25 Sup. Ct. 342, 49 L. Ed. 615.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

EternalHoH  You do realise that political action committees and other non profit are also tax exempt, even those whose sole purpose is to influence the government.   Do not forget "the power to tax is the power to destroy.   Besides you know that a chuch which supported a government action wouldn't be political while any that disagreed would.
.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ebonywarqueen

Bascially it is because if the church is funding the govn't then the church is controlling the govn't. Think of the influence the Catholic Church had on England. This country was a place people came to in order to escape that type of religious oppression. Church in America is a multi billion dollar business. That's a lot of power to throw at Washington DC in order to force legislation into a religious morality that has little or nothing to do with law and order.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

You're aware that Henry VIII had told the Pope to piss off and seized a lot of the land he owned in England long before any English colonies were established in the Americas, I hope?

In any case, your legendary "religious right" has a massive political influence without paying any taxes. I can't see anything that wrong with the idea that ministries which basically exist to pump huge amounts of money out of your country into South African diamond mines being expected to cough up some of their funds if they expect to be allowed to treat both parties as their bitches. I don't see how that would worsen the situation any.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

EternalHoH  You do realise that political action committees and other non profit are also tax exempt, even those whose sole purpose is to influence the government.   Do not forget "the power to tax is the power to destroy.   Besides you know that a chuch which supported a government action wouldn't be political while any that disagreed would.
.