Because your gift was less generous than it otherwise would have been because of the tax implications.
Lets say that you had an extra $14k to give her. However, you have to pay (making this up) 25% for the gift tax. Therefore you can only give her ($14k-X) instead of the full $14k.
That’s not what I did, in order to avoid showing favoritism to one daughter-in-law over others. To each daughter-in-law I gave 10K as a wedding present. But my $10K to Fatima cost me more money. She’s not injured. She got the 10K.
But you didn’t answer his question about media coverage:
And regarding your ‘one answer,’ President Obama took that action after the election. Why not be candid? President Obama didn’t take any action before the election so as not to color the inevitable Hillary win. So perhaps you should reconsider your definition of something.
I would argue that under that scenario, your daughter in law has no injury in fact. However, someone similarly situated would indeed have such an injury whereby the law could be challenged.
However, you have not been harmed by any rights that you have which the Constitution protects.
The Constitution protects me from the government exacting a monetary penalty as to one financial transaction, but not another, based solely on the recipient’s religion. Lemon v. Kurtzman.
I’ll read it, of course (as I have already) but I don’t believe standing was at issue in that case.
**bolding **mine
Argue what you will about the other points, but the press noted that the Obama administration was definitely not transparent and particularly resisted releasing information under FOIA. So yes, Obama did restrict information access. Sharply.
Washington Post: Obama promised transparency. But his administration is one of the most secretive
New York Times Letter to the Editor: Less Than Transparent: Journalists Fault Obama
Reason.com : ‘The Most Transparent Administration in History’
A campaign promise becomes a punchline.
Associated Press: Obama’s final year: US spent $36 million in records lawsuits
None of that is to argue that Trump is doing well in this regard. But Obama did NOT do well. Information secrecy and lack of transparency is one of the worst black marks on the Obama administration’s record.
Which puts paid to davida03801’s absurd position that the only reason anybody criticizes Trump for being objectively awful is because he’s not the sainted Obama who nobody ever criticized ever especially republicans.
“How come I got in trouble for trying to hack the bank’s computer? If the head of the bank’s cybersecurity tiger team did that, nobody would say boo!”
I quote Lemon to show that the Constitution forbids the government’s application of a financial penalty to a giver in differing ways based on the religious belief held by the recipient.
Other Muslim-Americans still have standing, presumably, since they might be interested in living in a country with more of their co-religionists. I’m not sure why someone has to be related to one of the immigrants in question to have standing.
No, that’s the sort of inchoate, diffuse relationship that typically does NOT give rise to standing, any more than “I want to live in a country without guns,” gives rise to standing to challenge a gun law.
Lemon was nearly twenty years before Lujan clarified the injury in fact test. Standing wasn’t questioned in Lemon.
I agree that Lemon is a very good case for your position, but I would argue that it is inapplicable.
Uh, OK. I haven’t studied law so I’ll concede you’re right.