The Soapbox

Hoo TV

Joined: 08/29/2012 Posts: 25621
Likes: 46307


It clearly depends. For example, the Trump administration's hands were


tied with respect to separating parents and children at the border.

Last week, "HHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen told reporters that border separation was mandated by federal law. It was, she said, the “product of loopholes in our federal immigration laws” and that Congress “alone can fix it.” And she said of those trying convince the White House to stop the practice: “Congress is asking those of us who enforce the law to turn our backs on the law.”

Whether the law actually requires the government to separate children from parents is the subject of significant doubt. But the Administration’s absolute claim that it must enforce laws, even if it disagrees with them, turns out to be somewhat…situational.

To wit, the Trump administration has chosen to simply ignore the 65-year-old Johnson Amendment, "that bars 501(C)(3) non-profits, including houses of worship, from participating in political campaigns for, or against, a candidate."

Ignoring the Johnson Amendment

Twice in the last three weeks, in formal remarks, Vice President Mike Pence said the Administration would ignore another statute: The Johnson Amendment that bars 501(C)(3) non-profits, including houses of worship, from participating in political campaigns for, or against, a candidate.

Pence could have not been more explicit. Speaking to the Family Research Council on May 25, he said the Johnson Amendment “will no longer be enforced under this administration.” He repeated the vow in a speech to the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention last week.

Pence is merely echoing President Trump, who has made no secret of his commitment to repealing the law. Candidate Trump included it in his campaign platform and has repeated the vow frequently since his election. A year ago he signed an executive order that he said repealed the law. Of course, the president can’t repeal a legislative statute by fiat.

Congress has been clear

For decades, Congress has been clear about its views on electioneering by 501(c)(3)s. The Johnson Amendment has been on the books for nearly 65 years. Congress slightly toughened the law in 1987. And although it has had multiple opportunities to repeal or scale it back over the past 18 months, Congress has explicitly declined do so.

The House has tried unsuccessfully to use spending bill riders to limit the ability of the IRS to enforce the Johnson Amendment. Last year, conservative lawmakers tried, but failed, to use the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act to repeal the law.

And that is why the Administration’s commitment to ignoring this law is so concerning. It seems clear that a majority in Congress does not want to change the legal restrictions on politicking by churches and other 501(c)(3)s. Yet the Administration vows to ignore the law.

(In response to this post by 81_Hokie)

Link: President Trump's Situational Enforcement Of Tax And Immigration Laws


Posted: 06/26/2018 at 5:20PM



+4

Insert a Link

Enter the title of the link here:


Enter the full web address of the link here -- include the "http://" part:


Current Thread:
 
  
SCOTUS destroying consumer protections today, too -- WahooMatt05 06/26/2018 1:37PM
  I think the ruling was the opposite -- WahooMatt05 06/26/2018 5:03PM
  No problem -- WahooMatt05 06/26/2018 9:09PM
  You're a good person 81. For a hokie :>) ** -- 111Balz 06/26/2018 8:46PM
  I think Matt is right -- NJHoo 06/26/2018 8:45PM
  They all thought SHE would win. ** -- ConnHoo 06/26/2018 9:12PM
  Radical transformation? lol ** -- 111Balz 06/26/2018 3:32PM
  ...actually it was fundamentally transform...my bad ** -- Tuckahokie 06/26/2018 3:50PM
  Perhaps you would share with us what fundamental -- 111Balz 06/26/2018 3:55PM
  What law and proclomation was that? ** -- 111Balz 06/26/2018 4:08PM
  I am referring of course to DACA -- MaizeAndBlueWahoo 06/26/2018 4:18PM
  Well I assumed it was that or pot or immigration -- 111Balz 06/26/2018 8:21PM
  Was it? ** -- 111Balz 06/27/2018 08:35AM
  Es diferente ** -- WahooMatt05 06/26/2018 5:36PM
  Time and tide wait for no man ** -- Hoo TV 06/26/2018 3:27PM
  They certainly did -- MaizeAndBlueWahoo 06/26/2018 3:25PM
  Sure the citizens should decide by -- walkthecorner 06/26/2018 3:37PM
  I am sure this a gotcha moment but -- walkthecorner 06/26/2018 4:23PM
  Unfortunately, both are problematic -- MaizeAndBlueWahoo 06/26/2018 4:24PM
  I agree was off the cusp response since -- walkthecorner 06/26/2018 5:10PM
  Agreed. ** -- Hokie5150 06/26/2018 4:56PM
  Uh, that's not what that law did -- MaizeAndBlueWahoo 06/26/2018 3:03PM
  Sorry for the late reply -- BonsackHoo 06/27/2018 6:29PM
  Seems fair to get rid of that law too -- MaizeAndBlueWahoo 06/26/2018 3:31PM
  Because.....freedom. ** -- Seattle .Hoo 06/26/2018 3:49PM
  I sure don't think there are. I just said "if." -- MaizeAndBlueWahoo 06/26/2018 3:46PM
  Because this is about giving people in crisis -- 111Balz 06/26/2018 4:07PM
  No, why would you ask that? ** -- 111Balz 06/26/2018 8:22PM
  Because it's about giving people in crisis -- MaizeAndBlueWahoo 06/26/2018 10:13PM
  Lots of forced speech is required -- WahooMatt05 06/26/2018 3:16PM
  Big difference -- MaizeAndBlueWahoo 06/26/2018 3:23PM
  Maybe Planned Parenthood v Casey is a better example -- WahooMatt05 06/26/2018 4:58PM
  So do you look that up in the yellow pages? ** -- 111Balz 06/26/2018 8:25PM
  Www.plannedparenthood.org -- BocaHoo91 06/26/2018 8:32PM
  Glad to see we agree ** -- BocaHoo91 06/26/2018 8:40PM
  Hey, that's great! ** -- 111Balz 06/26/2018 8:41PM
  Boo hoo snowflake ** -- TomKazanski 06/26/2018 2:22PM
  What makes it a horrible decision? ** -- Hokie5150 06/26/2018 3:30PM

Notice: Trying to get property 'queue' of non-object in /data/www/sportswar.com/wp-includes/script-loader.php on line 2781

Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /data/www/sportswar.com/wp-includes/script-loader.php on line 2781
vm307