IANA lawyer, but I believe rules are typically assumed to be exclusive.
Why (only) mention religious organizations if the rule is intended to apply to all NPOs?
From my standpoint, the bizarre thing is that Trump’s order is NOT giving religious conservatives the protections they actually wanted, but gives them a “benefit” nobody was asking for.
The Catholic Church wasn’t ASKING for the right to endorse candidates! No church I know of had that on their wish list. Trump gave the churches NONE of what they really wanted (say, a guarantee that tax exemptions and accreditations won’t be denied to schools run by churches that wont sanction gay marriage) but gives them the right to raise money and give endorsements to Donald Trump.
Trump did churches no favors. He did himself a big favor.
Because no new law is being created. This changes nothing. The EO says, in effect, “keep doing what you have been doing”. It’s an empty gesture whose purpose is to allow Trump to check off a box on the campaign promise list.
Astorian: This EO does not allow churches to endorse candidates. What part of it do you think does that?
I see merit in the atheist argument that a proclamation that religious organizations and their spokespeople shall not be prosecuted for stating their opinions makes it easier to stomp out those pesky non-religious folks that disagree with them. They were not offered protection for stating their opinion.
It seems that the EO simply says, “Everyone, even those religious nutjobs who think there is a grandfather in the sky, is entitled to an opinion. Were not saying they can disobey any laws and not provide services to people who think differently, just that they can complain about having to do it to their shrunken heart’s content”
Even if this is the case, it’s a negative gesture for the excluded groups. Right?
Flip it round – if it had read “Non-religious organizations may blah blah”, the church would of course be pissed about it, and suspect it was the thin end of a wedge intended to take away their rights.
Secondly, if it’s a completely empty EO, with no difference from the status quo, why does it seem you care about people suing over it?
“I’m pissed” does not make the basis for a very good law suit.
I’ve not said anything about whether or not I “care” if people sue on this issue.
He even referred to her as “his liberal daughter” :eek:. Not a prudent thing to trash talk the Big Cheese’s family…
And golly gee whiz, I wonder what is another descriptor he could have used for Mr. and Mrs. Kuchner… y’know, since we’re talking about religion and all that…
Amazing, right? How unexpected of him!
Though I’d rather he occupy himself issuing big fat nothingburgers for optics’ sake than causing real damage, his expressions DO carry an implication of expecting the watchdogs to give more leeway to clergy’s political speech than to that of other NPOs, but it’s not as if for practical purposes that isn’t already so to a great extent.)
How about “We demand clarity on this issue”?
This EO either does something, or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t do anything, then why did they bother issuing it? Clearly someone, somewhere in the process, decided it did something in either establishing a new rule, or in establishing a new interpretation of an old rule.
And yet, the very people it was intended to favor can’t quite figure out what it’s actually doing.
That kind of vagueness is the exact opposite of what you want in a law. No one ever wants to go into court not actually knowing if they’ve broken the law or not. So it’s in everyone’s best interests to have the courts rule on what, if anything, this EO does.
If it does nothing, then we need to have that clearly stated. And if it does something, then it’s clearly biased in favor of the religious over the secular.
No, not good either. You have to demonstrate harm in order to have standing.
Why are people suddenly demanding that Trump act logically? With all the vitriol thrown at him in this MB, why can’t this particular instance also be chalked up to stupidity and incompetence?
Seriously, though, it’s like I said earlier. It lets him check off one more box on his campaign promises list. He doesn’t care if he’s lying when he says he’s done something. Anyone who doesn’t understand that hasn’t been paying attention.
Because the reason(s) why the law was badly-written are irrelevant?
For the same reason people whine about those suing to remove “ceremonial deism”–there’s no such thing. It’s deism, pure and simple. Trump signed this executive order to pander more to the idiots who supported him.
Missed edit window.
ETA: Not saying John Mace cares, but rather that there are people who want the US government to proclaim and defend one certain religion.
I’m not sure I understand that response.
If a law truly has no effect whatsoever, I don’t care whether it gets repealed. Do you?
Trump is stupid and incompetent. No doubt about that.
However, he has staff and I doubt they are all as stupid and incompetent as he is. Certainly Trump did not write this EO himself. Someone else did it for him (probably lawyers). I seriously doubt he was deeply involved in the process at all beyond some vague directives.
This seems more like the best dodge lawyers could come up with when Trump gave them the impossible task of crafting an EO that is legal that gives churches stuff.
I care because I seriously doubt it has no effect. Besides being political theater, it shows that the current “Occupy White House” administration has a large bias towards one certain religion and an even larger bias against another certain religion. The theatrics involved with this EO were nothing more nor less than announcing that there won’t be any consequences for running roughshod over rights. Trump has proven that, at long last, he can learn something; sadly, that thing he’s learned is he has to whittle, not chop.
The EO doesn’t give churches anything.
That’s not how Executive Orders work. An Executive Order directs an agency of the Administration on how to handle a particular situation.
E.g. It shall be the policy of this Administration that the Secretary of X, at the Department of Y, shall do Z.
Which agency was this particular executive order directing, and what was this executive order directing that agency to do/not do?
Perhaps my language was too loose. To me directing an agency to lay off churches is giving the churches “stuff”. I did not mean that the churches had to be given a fruit basket (or some other physical thing) to count as getting “stuff”.
It’s quoted above:
So, he’s clearly telling to the Treasury Secretary to continue applying the ordinary rules.
Even more clearly, to apply those rules for a certain religious group:
. Either he is saying nothing of consequence, or he is saying that such protection should be afforded the religious in particular.
Now, why do you think this executive order was pushed so hard and cheered so heartily if the former is true, and not the latter?