Hearing on Confederacy plaques to be rescheduled(Texas)

San Antonio Express-News ^ | 02/05/2004

[SwinneySwitch]

AUSTIN — A hearing has been delayed in a lawsuit by the Sons of Confederate Veterans to restore plaques commemorating the Confederacy to the Texas Supreme Court building.

Bill Kuhn, Addison lawyer for the Confederate veterans group, said he requested the postponement because he was feeling “under the weather.”

“We're going to reset it,” Kuhn said. “It's purely a scheduling issue.”

The hearing on the request for summary judgment — a ruling without a trial — likely will be rescheduled in three to four weeks, Kuhn said.

Assistant Attorney General John Morehead also said today's hearing wasn't taking place as scheduled upon the plaintiffs' request.

The plaques were removed from the court building in 2000 under then-Gov. George W. Bush, who was then running for president.

One plaque depicted a Confederate battle flag and quoted Robert E. Lee. The other bore the Confederate seal.

They were replaced with plaques noting the building was constructed with money from a Confederate pension fund saying courts are entrusted with giving equal justice “regardless of race, creed or color.”

[SwinneySwitch]

FYI

[mac_truck]

I thought SCV were reenactors not political agitators.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

ping

[Arkinsaw]

I thought SCV were reenactors not political agitators.

The SCV has absolutely nothing to do with reenacting. The SCV is attempting to get two historical plaques restored to their original location. The politics were played by others when they were removed.

[mac_truck]

The SCV has absolutely nothing to do with reenacting.

You could have fooled me. Why else do they march around in those woolen grey uniforms?

[Arkinsaw]

You could have fooled me. Why else do they march around in those woolen grey uniforms?

Sons of Union Veterans wear Union uniforms at certain events as well, but they are not reenactors either. If you or I were to go put on one of those uniforms we also would not be reenactors.

[mac_truck]

You're selling, but I'm not buying.

[Arkinsaw]

You're selling, but I'm not buying.

LOL. Well, you are free to believe whatever incorrect thing you want.

[hillyes]

Some SCV members are reinactors,but ON THEIR OWN. Just as some SCV members are researchers or relic hunters.

[hillyes]

Or none of the above.

[Arkinsaw]

Some SCV members are reinactors,but ON THEIR OWN. Just as some SCV members are researchers or relic hunters.

Yep, on their own. Some pilots are sky divers, but that doesn't make Delta Airlines a sky-diving organization.

But some people wouldn't buy that. LOL.

[mac_truck]

The SCV website states their organization is nonpolitical. However if you and others claim different, then maybe the Internal Revenue Service should check the SCV out with an eye on pulling their 501c status.

Now wouldn't that be funny?

[Arkinsaw]

The SCV website states their organization is nonpolitical. However if you and others claim different, then maybe the Internal Revenue Service should check the SCV out with an eye on pulling their 501c status.

You should read closer. I said that the SCV are not reenactors. Where did I say they were political? In fact, I said that they are attempting to get two historical plaques replaced in their historical location which...is not political.

You are either purposefully obtuse or careless in your debate points.

[mac_truck]

Everyone who wants the plaques removed is politically motivated, and everyone who wants the plaques restored is not.

That about sums up your position. Lets see if the IRS agrees.

[Arkinsaw]

That about sums up your position. Lets see if the IRS agrees.

They do. Restoring historical items to their historical places is well within the scope of the SCV's Constitution and is not a partisan political activity. If the SCV were to advocate for the election of a candidate that favored the return of the plaques then there would be political activity. But advocating restoration of the plaques? Not even close.

You should read up on the details of non-profit status.

[mac_truck]

As should you.

Lots of activities that fall short of overt endorsement of candidates may be considered political activism, and I would suggest to you that filing lawsuits against the state might just fall well within that range. It certainly goes far beyond the mere advocacy you claim the SCV is engaged in.

You mentioned purposeful obtusness earlier. Doctor heal theyself.

[Arkinsaw]

As should you. Lots of activities that fall short of overt endorsement of candidates may be considered political activism, and I would suggest to you that filing lawsuits against the state might just fall well within that range. It certainly goes far beyond the mere advocacy you claim the SCV is engaged in.

You mentioned purposeful obtusness earlier. Doctor heal theyself.

You obviously don't understand federal law related to non-profit organizations. Thousands of non-profits on every end of the spectrum have done these sort of things legally and without comment from the IRS for decades. Please.....don't just make up federal law because you like how you sound. I'm done talking with you because REALITY bears out my point of view on this. When the IRS revokes the SCV's status over these plaques get back with me.

[mac_truck]

Thousands of non-profits on every end of the spectrum have done these sort of things legally and without comment from the IRS for decades.

Then it should be fairly easy for you to provide some examples for comparison, yet you haven't. Why is that?

When the IRS revokes the SCV's status over these plaques get back with me.

How about when the SCV gets those plaques replaced on the State courthouse you get back to me. IMT get ready for a long overdue audit that will make your annual visit to the proctologist a fond memory.

[Arkinsaw]

Then it should be fairly easy for you to provide some examples for comparison, yet you haven't. Why is that?

I can post them all day if you want.

The American Library Association, a non-profit, has filed suit against the government of the United States to prevent the government from forcing them to install filtering software in libaries. The IRS is not going to revoke their tax exempt status for defending their point of view in court.

Another 501-C3 organization, the Electronic Freedom Foundation, is supplying lawyers for them. The EFF litigates regularly and files friend of the court briefs with the courts on a regular basis in cases in which the government is a party. The IRS will not revoke their tax exempt status for defending their views before the courts.

I can go on with the NAACP which is a non-profit that seeks to remove historical items. The SCV is doing the opposite of the NAACP. The IRS is not going to revoke either tax exempt status for defending their points of view before a court.

There are more and they run the gamut from the ACLU foundation, to Right to Life organizations. The IRS will not revoke their tax exempt status for exercising their right to defend their views in a court of law.

How about when the SCV gets those plaques replaced on the State courthouse you get back to me. IMT get ready for a long overdue audit that will make your annual visit to the proctologist a fond memory.

You are wishful thinking rather than logically thinking. The IRS does not revoke the tax exempt status of organizations for defending their views in court. That would be unconstitutional behavior on the part of the IRS. The government cannot punish an individual or organization for seeking redress before the courts. Seeking redress from the courts is constitutionally protected.

This is very similar to when the SCV sued the governments of some States for barring them from the vanity license plate program. The SCV won those suits and have yet to be punished by the IRS for doing so.

Now you can be a jackass all you want. But it doesn't change the fact that you don't have a freaking clue about what you are talking about and its rather obvious. The IRS cannot not punish you for seeking redress before the courts.

Cheers.

[mac_truck]

In the example you've chosen to cite the American Library Assoc. is suing in federal court to overturn a provision of federal law known as CIPA, which mandates the use of blocking technology on computers in public libraries that receive government subsidized Internet connections. Their supporting legal counsel is the ACLU. They have also become vocal proponents for overturning portions of the Patriot Act that are not to their liking.

Organisations that are exempt from federal tax under section 501c3 of the Internal Revenue code are subject to limitations on their lobbying efforts. Organisations with this designation are banned from participating in political campaigns at any level as well as from forming, constituting, supporting or administering a political action committee.

The politicalization of non-profit organisations is a major problem in the United States (imo). Millions of dollars are donated to these organisations which turn around and engage in political activities that violate both their tax exempt status and federal and state election laws. And yes, beyond being a waste of the courts time I beleive these lawsuits are part of a larger partisan effort to influence legislation and voters.

I am also disturbed that the public library has become the next stop in this effort. Public libraries should not engage in political action. The ALA's activities should be looked at carefully, especially as it pertains to how they operate on a local level.

Your response to my criticism of SCV (and now the ALA) engaging in this type of activity seems to be a mealy-mouthed "everyone's doing it" . How unfortunate.