That’s an interesting cite about Fannie and Freddy, but doesn’t say anything about the big banks and the mortgage related derivates that were the crux of the crisis.
I was under the impression that certain administrations HAD suspended certain taxes at the discretion of the President–either Bush II or Clinton. This is just from memory, though.
I apologize for my absence. Sometimes, real life intrudes on my SDMB time.
It would seem that 8 U.S.C. § 1229b, as posted by Really Not All That Bright, would satisfy the requirement. I apologize if my word “explicit” complicated things. As I read through Title 8, I see an awful lot of “the Attorney General may” language, indicating to me that he/she has lots of discretion in enforcing the law. Given that 100% enforcement is a practical impossibility, it would seem that such discretion would be critical in the proper operation of the law.
It seems to me that Obama’s directive is more fair than the previous system. He has set down specific criteria to be met and invited those who meet those criteria to apply. That has to be better than arbitrary enforcement and hiding in the shadows.
I don’t think that citation is on point. That provision of law gives the Attorney General discretion on whether to remove a permanent or nonpermanent residents, who by definition are in the country legally. I don’t know and can’t find what provision of the immigration code relates to the removal of those who are not in the country legally, so I have no clue if the AG has discretion there.
So, perhaps Terr’s objection is based solely on my use of the word “explicit” in my earlier post on this subject. Instead, this discretionary power can be found explicitly in case law and it is only implied in the actual code.
In any event, Obama is not ignoring the Constitution or choosing not to enforce a law duly passed by Congress. Instead, he is exercising the discretion that is written into the Code and supported by relevant case law.
You left out the best part: “Everybody knows that taxes are for little people. Coal miners and other grubby types need to pay taxes on their wages. But we’ve gone a long way toward eliminating taxes on people who inherit money, and now it’s time to eliminate taxes on people who sit around and collect dividends.”
This space reserved for the disingenuous responses about how Republicans are only thinking of the children of people whose retirement funds are invested in stocks.
:rolleyes: :dubious: I have already cited Jay v. Boyd, which is a Supreme Court case. You are free to argue that opinion was wrong; but not WRT to whether Obama is exceeding his authority – for those purposes, the SCOTUS’ intrepretation of the law trumps yours. Find me a later SCOTUS opinion reversing Jay v. Boyd and you might have a point. But you won’t.
Wait a second. What the hell are you even talking about? As a lawyer, I should know that some columnist is a dishonest, disingenuous creep?
You seem to be jumping a few key steps in your argument.
I made an argument similar to Krauthhammer’s.
Other parts of Krauthhammer’s arguments are dishonest.
Every lawyer should know that those other parts of Krauthhammer’s arguments are dishonest.
Therefore, I should too.
But… which argument of his did I make that is disingenuous and dishonest? Why am I responsible for other arguments of his that I never made?
I never said a damn thing about the status of unlawful enemy combatants. And I hadn’t read Krauthhammer’s column when I made my post. I HAD read The Corner. I have written not a single word endorsing or supporting Krauthhammer’s theories.
Yes, if he presumes to repeat them in a forum like this.
See above.
That there is any equivalence, WRT to abuse-of-discretion or constitutional/legal-overreach, between Obama changing deportation policy and Obama refusing to collect capital gains tax. That is
what this thread of yours is about.
That seems to indicate that the Executive branch has discretion on whether to prosecute any case, not just deportation cases. So wouldn’t that discretion extent to the decision to prosecute a case of tax evasion? Meaning that Bricker’s proposal is exactly equivalent to what Obama did?
So make that case. You say that there is no equivalence between Obama’s changing deportation policy and a future president refusing to collect capital gains tax?
I really wish you’d tell us what the thread is about in the first post. (Isn’t there a rule about that?) Instead, you made no mention of immigration in your OP. Were you hoping to trick people into offering an opinion that you could use against them when the secret debate topic was finally revealed?
It’s really horrible of you to accuse Bricker of lawyerly trickery.
Oh wait…
And yes, Bricker, for about the 1000th time, arguing like we’re all in court, when we’re just NOT, does tend to piss people off. The stakes just aren’t high enough to warrant this sort of thing, and there are kinder ways to communicate.
Suppose you’re right (and I’m not conceding that point, just supposing). What difference does that make?
With regard to immigration, Obama has directed that certain cases need not be prosecuted. He described in detail what those cases would be. Given that the people he described are being productive (in getting an education), behaving themselves (not criminals), and came to the US through no action of their own (they were kids at the time), once could argue that their infraction is so small as to be negligible. Better to devote ICE resources to going after the illegal aliens who are a drain on society, misbehaving (as in being criminals), and actively sought to sneak into the country.
With regard to capital gains tax, wouldn’t the same rules apply (in your scenario)? Joe Schmoe owes $2 in capital gains taxes and fails to pay it. Richie Rich owes $2 million in capital gains taxes and fails to pay it. The executive has the resources to prosecute one of these miscreant taxpayers. Who are you going to go after?
Obama did not through out all immigration law and say he would not pursue any immigration-related prosecutions. He just said that these certain cases would not be pursued. So, if President (God forbid) Romney were to issue a similar directive, it would not be to eliminate the pursuit of capital gains taxes. It would be more along the lines of “The IRS will no longer go after taxpayers who fail to pay capital gains taxes in amounts less than $1000.”
The executive branch has discretion on whether to prosecute any individual case. It seems to me that falls under ordinary prosecutorial discretion.
However, in the specific arena of deportation, Congress has extended additional specific statutory discretion to the Attorney General (or since most of that case law came about, the Secretary of Homeland Security.)
The difference is that the DoJ can say, “we’re not going to prosecute this guy,” but the DoHS can say, “we’re not going to deport this group of people.”
Somewhere in the middle is Obama’s policy on federal enforcement of drug laws in states where medicinal marijuana is legal. It’s worth noting that the DoJ recently made an about-face on the issue (ie., abandoning its prior policy of not raiding licensed growers.)
In any event, Bricker finds the discretion issue to be the most compelling argument. I don’t. For me, the most compelling argument is that illegal presence is not a crime, while tax evasion is. That said, you’re the expert - If I’m incorrect, and not paying capital gains taxes is something more akin to a regulatory infraction, I might well change my mind.
When my fictional President Romney announces he’s doing it “because it’s the right thing to do” I have trouble imagining how the analogy wasn’t immediately crystal clear.