4 ms·

That depends on whether or not you consider those things to be rights, and whether or not you consider taxes to be infringements. Taxes on voting have been con

by bmelton 10y ago

That depends on whether or not you consider those things to be rights, and whether or not you consider taxes to be infringements. Taxes on voting have been considered to be prima fascia discriminatory, despite having been largely categorized as reasonable. Why? Because it is considered de facto discriminatory against the poor. That said, it isn't a matter of whether or not it infringes, but whether or not congress can make laws respecting them, and laws that tax religion are laws that were created to tax religion. Yes, I know that isn't a slam dunk argument, because it cuts into whether or not the tax is particular to the exercise, and whether or not the tax interferes with the free exercise of that religion, but it's worth pointing out that while your argument holds merit, there are meritorious arguments to the contrary. Also worth noting that whether or not we can tax religion is an entirely different argument from whether or not we should tax religion, which is again a different argument from whether or not we would tax religion.

dllthomas 10y ago
> That depends on whether or not you consider those things to be rights, I think those things were chosen precisely because they are guaranteed by the same document (and in the case of newspapers, the very same amendment) as was under discussion.
- bmelton 10y ago
  Probably, but not everyone considers those things to be rights. Meanwhile, I tossed voting out because while it is patently a right, it is expressly not protected by that document. Edit: I often forget that most people don't know the context to this. TLDR, there is no "right to vote" in the constitution. There are amendments that prohibit discrimination in the practice of voting, but if a state wanted to abolish elections for all people, they would not be infringing anyone's constitutional right to vote because no such right exists, as no such right is enumerated. Of course, not all rights are enumerated, but typically unenumerated rights are subject to lesser judicial scrutiny. Of course, this is not generally the case with voting and (lately at least) gay marriage, but altogether, this is a much longer discussion that is somewhat tangential to the argument at hand.

by bmelton 10y ago

dllthomas 10y ago

> That depends on whether or not you consider those things to be rights, I think those things were chosen precisely because they are guaranteed by the same document (and in the case of newspapers, the very same amendment) as was under discussion.

bmelton 10y ago
Probably, but not everyone considers those things to be rights. Meanwhile, I tossed voting out because while it is patently a right, it is expressly not protected by that document. Edit: I often forget that most people don't know the context to this. TLDR, there is no "right to vote" in the constitution. There are amendments that prohibit discrimination in the practice of voting, but if a state wanted to abolish elections for all people, they would not be infringing anyone's constitutional right to vote because no such right exists, as no such right is enumerated. Of course, not all rights are enumerated, but typically unenumerated rights are subject to lesser judicial scrutiny. Of course, this is not generally the case with voting and (lately at least) gay marriage, but altogether, this is a much longer discussion that is somewhat tangential to the argument at hand.