So Trump put out an executive order whose purpose was to tell everyone to keep doing what they are doing?
Because he’s trying to bullshit the religious section of his base. Not sure what you mean by “pushed so hard” but the leaked draft of this EO had the ACLU on high alert but they’ve laughed off the actual order. No one is really cheering it. The plain reading makes this look inconsequential and the ACLU agrees, so what’s your conterargument besides “smells fishy”?
Yes, with great flourish.
Again I submit there is more here.
Yes the text of the EO is near worthless.
But I suggest that this was a way to signal the various agencies to lay off religious institutions.
There is nothing new about a president telling agencies to lay off (e.g. don’t go after marijuana users so much).
If you were the head of the IRS what would you make of this EO? Do you think if tomorrow you chase down some church for electioneering you won’t be getting an angry call from the president?
It’s possible someone at the IRS could make some leap in what he’s being “signaled” but what do you imagine this “laying off” will look like? Do you expect a rash of churches endorsing candidates with impunity, despite the clear wording to follow normal procedure? One article I read mentioned that the last time a church lost tax exemption status for endorsing a candidate was decades ago.
Yes, churches have been getting away with electioneering for a long time.
My guess (after thinking about this more) is this is more to protect new right-wing organizations that form as a 501(c)(3). Remember the hullabaloo when the IRS targeted some right wing groups for extra scrutiny?
This EO seems a message to the IRS to stop doing that…never mind if the scrutiny is deserved.
The point you may be missing is that no agency has been doing that sort of thing anyway. It’s such a rare event that this is truly a “stay the course” directive. “Keep enforcing all existing laws the way you have been [or not].”
So why issue the executive order?
No one is cheering it? Really? Were all those religious leaders standing around him because they happened to taking a tour of the White House grounds at the time?
Indeed, that’s what the ACLU, which analyzed this EO, has said. They said it was nothing but a photo op but did not contain any actual policy implications.
Maybe there is some innuendo going on, as some posters have implied, but the ACLU at least only responds to real action, and there is none here.
You’ll notice that article includes mentioning the ACLU plans to sue, a threat they’ve since withdrawn after actually reading the EO. I have to assume the cheering mentioned is also pre-reading.
If the president tells his agencies to lay off going after people who smoke marijuana is there a basis to sue for those who want to see all pot smokers prosecuted?
My point being is something has changed but there is no legal remedy.
What has changed again?
I want a pony. Is there a basis to sue if I don’t get one?
Wanting something is not the same thing as the president of the US giving something.
Trump has signaled the IRS to lay off 501(c)(3) organizations (some, not all, just religious ones) for electioneering.
But they were already off the hook. Churches are still free to expound on political topics of the day and still not allowed to endorse a candidate.
That’s not the point. Wanting something is the same as wanting something.
Emphasis added
Not following your point at all.
“Wanting” to see something happen is not the basis for a law suit. Why would it be? We all want to see lots of things that we don’t get to see. Can you cite anyone winning a lawsuit based on their desire to see something?
Yes but it’s kinda like a sword of Damocles…the possibility that the thugs will swoop in holds them back, at least a bit. But if you are told to knock yourself out, do the thing to your heart’s content you are more emboldened.