Thursday, May 28, 2009

Americans United attack Liberty

Liberty University recently "revoked its recognition of a student-run Democrat club." That doesn't mean the students can't have the club, it just means that it cannot use official Liberty University logos, and will not receive university funding.

Liberty took this stand because the Democrat's support for abortion and homosexual sex is not compatible with the mission of the university.

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State has filed a complaint with the IRS to revoke Liberty's tax exempt status.

If "Americans United for the Separation of Church and State" really believes in the separation of church and state, why are they asking the state to interfere in the internal matters of a private Christian university?

According to OneNewsNow,

Mathew Staver, dean of the Liberty University law school, calls the complaint "frivolous" and says Liberty will ask the IRS to review whether Americans United should lose its tax-exempt status for regularly supporting Democratic Party positions.
I agree with Liberty's position and applaud them for having the guts to stand up to the "Americans United" bullies.

If the IRS presses forward with this issue, Liberty's lawyers should then demand that the tax exempt status of probably 90% of American Universities be re-examined for their extraordinarily unbalanced support of pro-Democrat and anti-Republican issues and politicians.


Jason said...

What is more disturbing is that if you put this to an individual level you could argue the same thing against any Christian. "They are teaching their kids only Christian values. Take away their Child tax deductions!"

I feel like we need to start to get laws against "legal bullying" or something.

Dennis said...


Good points. The idea that the IRS would take away child tax deductions may seem far-fetched but anything is possible once our president starts filling the Supreme court with people like Sotomayor who think it is the court's responsibility to make policy decisions.

We should remember that in my parent's generation the idea that the tax exempt status of a Christian University would be challenged would have been unthinkable! Things that were unthinkable in my younger years are becoming public policy today, thanks to Mr. Obama.

Income taxes are not just about raising income for the government (the Fair Tax could do that), they are an effective tool for implementing government policy and censorship. The use of taxes to affect religion in any way should be declared absolutely unconstitutional, in violation of the first amendment.

professor ed said...

While the following landmark case pertained to a state taxing a fedeal entity, the point I am making with this is the famous quote that the power to tax is the power to destroy.
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Many state banks did not like the competition and the conservative practices of the Bank of the United States. As a way to restrict the Bank's operations, the state of Maryland imposed a tax on it. After the Bank refused to pay the tax, the case went to court. Maryland argued that the federal government did not have the authority to establish a bank, because that power was not delegated to them in the Constitution.
The Supreme Court reached a unanimous decision that upheld the authority of Congress to establish a national bank. In the opinion, Chief Justice John Marshall conceded that the Constitution does not explicitly grant Congress the right to establish a national bank, but noted that the "necessary and proper" clause of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to do that which is required to exercise its enumerated powers. Thus, the Court affirmed the existence of implied powers.

On the issue of the authority of Maryland to tax the national bank, the Court also ruled in the Bank's favor. The Court found that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy . . . If the states may tax one instrument [of the Federal Government] they may tax any and every other instrument . . . the mail . . . the mint . . . patent rights . . . judicial process? This was not intended by the American people. They did not design to make their government dependent on the States." Furthermore, he said, "The Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme; they control the Constitution and laws of the respective states and cannot be controlled by them."
I wonder if the intent of this extremely liberal "Americans United for..." is merely to intimidate Liberty, and any others that might consider Liberty's course of action, by this lawsuit. Yes, it will probably be thrown out. But think of the time and money Liberty will have to expend to defent itself. This is neither the first, nor the last, time this intimidation lawsuit approach has been implemented.