"A future Republican president could order that collection of corporate taxes not be enforced".

[Nye Bevan]

While I think Obama did the right thing with his immigration order, how do you counter this argument?

[arcane1]

1. I'm not sure what the argument is.

[dsc]

2. that under prosecuteral discression the President could order that the IRS and the DOJ

refuse to enforce laws against tax cheating by corporations.

[Nye Bevan]

4. Thank you!

Perhaps I should have elaborated in the OP.

[arcane1]

5. Is it true? I'm not sure what I'm supposed to counter.

[Nye Bevan]

8. Imagine that President Cruz (work with me here) wants to cut corporate taxes by 50%,

but cannot get Congress to pass legislation that would effect this.

So instead, he makes an announcement that he will order the IRS and the DOJ not to take any action against any corporation for underpaying their corporate taxes, provided that they pay at least 50% of what they owe. Mission accomplished, without any law having been passed.

The question is, do you have an issue with the president's right to do this, and if so, how do you square this with Obama's action on immigration law enforcement?

[arcane1]

11. I would disagree with that choice regardless if it was congress or the president who made it.

[aquart]

12. Piffle. Nobody needs to order that. They've been doing it for years.

Then there were all those Bushy signing statements, too.

Having failed to impeach Bush, presidential power is basically unlimited if you feel like it.

Which is why we must never elect Canadian Cruz.

[JDPriestly]

87. The president is supposed to execute the laws.

The Congress, in the situation you describe, could pass a law specifically requiring the IRS to enforce laws requiring corporations to pay their taxes.

In a sense, we have already seen that the Justice Department did not really prosecute laws against fraud although mortgage companies and banks committed obvious fraud when they forged signatures on foreclosure documents. Forgery is a crime.

Congress in the immigration dispute has the authority to pass a law that supersedes the President's executive order and clarifies the immigration law. At that point, it is the president's duty to enforce it although prosecutors have the discretion to indict or bring people to court or to let them go.

Have you ever been in an Immigration Court in a big city with lots of immigrants -- like say Dallas or Los Angeles?

They are the busiest courts in my opinion. Congress should allocate a lot more money for the Immigration Courts and clarify the laws.

There would be a problem with the discrimination in imposing taxes if corporations were excused from paying legally assessed taxes while other individuals were not excused. I don't think there would be any rational basis for doing that.

[Wella]

3. The argument is that if Obama can make an Executive Order that goes against one set of laws, he can

do so for another.

So if he can make an Executive Order ignoring Federal and State laws on illegal immigration, he can make an Executive Order ignoring tax law.

That's the argument, I think. The OP can tell me if I'm wrong.

[treestar]

19. he's not ignoring a law but exercising a power under it

any Executive can choose to grant deferred action, that's in the immigration law.

[Wella]

22. Deferred action was only for children under 16

In "extending" a law intended for children to adults, Obama can be rightfully accused of ignoring the actual text and intent of the law. According to that view, Obama is legislating, a function reserved in the Constitution for Congress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_Action_for_Childhood_Arrivals

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is an American immigration policy which allows certain illegal immigrants who entered the country before their 16th birthday and before June 2007 to receive a renewable two-year work permit and exemption from deportation. It does not confer legal immigration status or provide a path to citizenship. It was started by the Obama administration in June 2012.

At the program's start, the Pew Research Center estimated that up to 1.7 million people might be eligible for the program.[1] As of March 2014, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has approved 550,000 different applicants under DACA.[2]

In November 2014, U.S. President Barack Obama announced changes to DACA which would expand it to include illegal immigrants who entered the country before 2010, eliminate the requirement that applicants be younger than 31 years old, and lengthen the renewable deferral period to three years. The Pew Research Center estimated that this would increase the number of eligible people by about 330,000.[3]

[treestar]

40. deferred action can be given to anybody

Obama chose to give it only to certain children. The DACA is not an Act. It's just an executive policy.

[Wella]

46. Deferred action should not be a replacement for immigration law

Deferment is something done for special cases on an emergency basis. It can't be a parallel legal system for immigration. Congress has to be the center of any immigration law and reform.

Yes, I agree that the Republican Congress was stonewalling and not dealing with this issue. And the TEA people, don't get me started. I have a friend who runs a large program for a Federal Agency, and she's terrified that a TEA-infested Congress is going to defund her program. (They are also a very sexist bunch--no surprise there--and that makes her job super difficult. They prefer to deal with her male underling and it gives him an exalted sense of power, but I digress...)

Anyway, I agree that the GOP has been obstructionist to the nth degree on this issue and, quite frankly, we should have a regular policy for these folks, acknowledging the fact that they are really part of the US. A friend of mine just got her American citizenship after many years of working here, having a family here, and now, having grandchildren. It takes too damned long. And she was here from Mexico legally. We need to streamline these procedures.

Sorry, I get upset about this. But the long and the short of it is that although I agree with the spirit of the policy, I am worried about the incursions of the Unitary Executive phenomenon. We had this under Bush and it's only getting worse. As much as we despise the current Congress, we have to uphold Congress' role--they are the one part of the government that can represent us directly. That's why the Constitution gives Congress the exclusive power to make laws.

[treestar]

67. It is part of the law

https://blackhistory360.wordpress.com/2014/11/22/chief-justice-rush-limbaugh-declares-obamas-immigration-order-unconstitutional-blog-media-matters-for-america/

Presidents can do this at any time and have been able to for a while.

SANDWEG: Longstanding law already allows for individuals who are granted deferred action to gain work authorization. This is not central to how and why a policy like DACA makes sense. We were looking for a tool to help our officers and agents to better do their jobs. The easiest way to effectuate that was granting deferred action. There was a longstanding, preexisting regulation that governs who gets work authorization; deferred action recipients were included in that regulation -- a decision that was made long before this administration.

[Wella]

71. It is not part of the law and your source is not a legal one

Look at what the law actually does on Whitehouse.gov:


http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/20/fact-sheet-immigration-accountability-executive-action

[treestar]

76. It is

Deferred action is part of the executive discretion and work permits go with it. Any POTUS could do it at any time. Just like they can require foreigners to register (which Bush did to Middle Easterners after 911). This is among the things they can do if they want.

[Wella]

79. Not sure what part you're answering here but your source is a blog and

you're really not understanding the legal issue here.

No hard feelings. Have a nice night.

[treestar]

84. You're not understanding the legal issue

There is a source in the laws - it's not up to you, but the courts.

You have to analyze this current use of the executive order according to case law that has been decided already.

You can't do that off the cuff. You have to look up the laws. The blog describes it accurately. So what it it's a blog. If you want case law, here is some:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=343&invol=579

We are asked to decide whether the President was acting within his constitutional power when he issued an order directing the Secretary of Commerce to take possession of and operate most of the Nation's steel mills. The mill owners argue that the President's order amounts to lawmaking, a legislative function which the Constitution has expressly confided to the Congress and not to the President. The Government's position is that the order was made on findings of the President that his action was necessary to avert a national catastrophe which would inevitably result from a stoppage of steel production, and that in meeting this grave emergency the President was acting within the aggregate of his constitutional powers as the Nation's Chief Executive and the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. The issue emerges here from the following series of events:

The President's power, if any, to issue the order must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself. There is no statute that expressly authorizes the President to take possession of property as he did here. Nor is there any act of Congress to which our attention has been directed from which such a power can fairly be implied. Indeed, we do not understand the Government to rely on statutory authorization for this seizure. There are two statutes which do authorize the President [343 U.S. 579, 586] to take both personal and real property under certain conditions. 2 However, the Government admits that these conditions were not met and that the President's order was not rooted in either of the statutes. The Government refers to the seizure provisions of one of these statutes ( 201 (b) of the Defense Production Act) as "much too cumbersome, involved, and time-consuming for the crisis which was at hand."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=453&invol=654

(d) Because the President's action in nullifying the attachments and ordering the transfer of assets was taken pursuant to specific congressional authorization, it is "supported by the strongest presumptions and the widest latitude of judicial interpretation, and the burden of persuasion would rest heavily upon any who might attack it." Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 637 (Jackson, J., concurring). Under the circumstances of this case, petitioner has not sustained that burden. P. 674.

2. On the basis of the inferences to be drawn from the character of the legislation, such as the IEEPA and the Hostage Act, which Congress has enacted in the area of the President's authority to deal with international crises, and from the history of congressional acquiescence in executive claims settlement, the President was authorized to suspend claims pursuant to the Executive Order in question here. Pp. 675-688.

(a) Although neither the IEEPA nor the Hostage Act constitutes specific authorization for the President's suspension of the claims, these statutes are highly relevant as an indication of congressional acceptance of a broad scope for executive action in circumstances such as those presented in this case. Pp. 675-679.

[amandabeech]

32. He's using prosecutorial discretion.

Cruz could use prosecutorial discretion with respect to IRS and environmental law prosecutions. Cruz could say that there isn't enough money to prosecute everyone and that he's going after the more egregious cases. Then the prosecutors could settle for really low amounts. There are some legal precedents, and I'm sure that they are included in the Dept. of Justice memo, but there are no statutory or Constitutional bounds.

That's one reason why President Obama has until now refrained from using executive orders in immigration and other areas. He doesn't want to set a bad precedent that would push executive orders down a slippery slope for any future unscrupulous president.

[treestar]

42. Any POTUS could use prosecutorial discretion on anything

especially anything regulatory.

Not enforcing taxes wouldn't be possible politically. People don't care if immigrants aren't deported relative to their caring about some people not having to pay their taxes if they do. There's no mechanism like deferred action, either. As it is it like already happens that there are settlements if a corporation manages to raise a legal issue on a tax. If that were interesting, the media would jump upon it to show Obama doing it as well.

[amandabeech]

43. You are right that political reaction is the real limit on executive orders. n/t

[Wella]

48. There should be bounds on Executive Orders

They are not part of the original design of government and serve only to create a parallel system of legislation that the framers never intended.

[amandabeech]

54. I agree with that. There's a real threat to the setup of three co-equal branches

particularly when there's partisan gridlock like we have now, and that, IMHO, we are likely to see at least until the next redistricting after the 2020 census.

The courts have been reluctant to get into a battle between the two other branches of government, and I don't blame them, but I think that they will be forced to set some limits in the future. We'll see if the current lawsuit is allowed to go forward, and if it is, whether the court will hear the case.

[Wella]

56. SCOTUS will be in an odd position

But some lines have to be drawn.

[amandabeech]

57. Yes, they do. n/t

[treestar]

68. There are

This is case law about them

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

[Wella]

69. Not really: they only have limits if a court strikes them down

Like both legislative statutes and regulations promulgated by government agencies, executive orders are subject to judicial review, and may be struck down if deemed by the courts to be unsupported by statute or the Constitution

There needs to be better clarification than that, especially since courts can be politicized.

[treestar]

77. No, there is judicial review

and it is not political, it is legal. The courts have the last word on what is legal and that applies to any legal question. They have reviewed Executive Orders before and there is an entire body of case law on that.

[Wella]

78. Yes, I said that

Judicial review means that they can strike it down after the fact. Before the fact, the White House checks with their attorneys.

[treestar]

85. What?

That makes no sense. Anything happens and can be reviewed. The Court issues no advisory opinions, thus, any President may decide for himself what is legal, as any legislature. Then someone has to challenge it in the courts.

[razorman]

81. I agree, for the most part. But, I do not know the complete history of the executive

order. However, as much as we may agree with the president on this particular issue, and may consider his action warranted, I am afraid that he has opened up a can of worms, legally and politically speaking. Each branch of government has some oversight power over the others, by design. Also, this will set a precedent for a future Repub president, who may decide to bypass a Democratic congress that refuses to pass some legislation that he or she wants. However, this may not be that traumatic, once people(and the congress) realize that President Obama's order was limited, and will not actually change the immigration situation very much.

[Lurks Often]

6. I'm not sure that you do

Even if you agree with a President on what they are trying to accomplish, if it exceeds the limits under the law on how far a President can go with an executive order, you have two basic options: Allow the executive order to stand and set a precedent that will allow a future President to issue an executive order you hate or you support the rule of law and expect the President you support not to exceed his authority when issuing an executive order.

[Wella]

24. Do you think this will go to the Surpreme Court?

Or will people let it ride because it is a good cause.

[YarnAddict]

30. I think it will go to the SC

The R base is seriously PISSED OFF over this, and they will need to throw them a bone, after what they did in the primaries this year.

[Wella]

36. You go to SCOTUS for the Constitution, not for some rabid base issues

I do think the purpose and scope of Executive Orders needs to be clarified by SCOTUS. I just think it will be a nasty political battle and I don't know if I have the stomach to watch it play out.

[YarnAddict]

44. SCOTUS is as political as anything now

Yes, it will be nasty. It's also the only thing the R PTB can offer. Impeachment won't happen, due to the lessons they learned during the Lewinsky scandal. They won't shut down the government, because that never works out well for them. Censure is a possibility, but it doesn't go far enough to placate the TP'ers.

[Wella]

50. Sadly, you're right

I always think of Satres here: L 'enfer, c'est les autres.

[Nye Bevan]

70. The question is, say the SCOTUS rules against Obama,

how can you possibly tell people that they are subject to deportation after all, having given them work permits, Social Security numbers, and the promise of a path to citizenship? You just can't.

[amandabeech]

34. The House of Reps has already started (or will soon file) a suit challenging some of

Obama's executive orders that modify some provisions of the ACA. Whether they add this executive order to the suit isn't known.

[Rstrstx]

58. I don't know how they're going to find a judge who'll rule they have standing

Even if they found one it would get overturned by an appeals court. Still, if filing lawsuits and slowing government down to a near-halt is how they want to spend the next two years I say let 'em. It'll make 2016 that much easier.

By the way did Obama order those delays over the ACA or was it the HHS Secretary? She's supposed to be the one in charge of implementing the law and can grant delays. If she ordered the changes I don't see where they have a case.

One argument I've heard tossed about, should the government lose King v. Burwell, is that Obama could go ahead and order the allowance of tax credits to individuals in non-state exchanges anyways. Now THAT'S something I don't know if he has the legal authority to do, or even direct the Secretary or IRS can do, but it would be interesting to put it mildly (and something more similar to the hypothetical scenario the OP brought up).

Honestly I expect this trend to continue as long as Congress can't get anything done. This trend started with Bush if not earlier, has been expanded quite a bit over Obama, and I expect to see future presidents, either D or R, to continue it as long as there's a dysfunctional Congress. It is a pretty blatant power grab by the Executive Branch but if the Legislative Branch isn't doing its job you can make a pretty good argument that it's a necessary evil.

[Lurks Often]

66. Don't know, I don't think there is enough information on the legal merits of the case

First the case would go to US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and depending on the ruling and how the ruling is written, the loser would then probably appeal to the US Supreme Court.

The short version is that the White House will have to show where the President gets the legal authority for the executive order in question and Congress will have to show that the President exceeded his authority on the executive order in question.

[Ykcutnek]

7. I will disagree with the policy, but recognize that president's right to exercise his authority.

[Xipe Totec]

9. Do it. nt

[The Straight Story]

10. And they couldn't before? Did something change? (nt)

[dmosh42]

13. I believe that would be illegal in violation of the constitution.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

16. I disagree

I think it would be ridiculous and wrong-headed, but not illegal or unconstitutional.

If the President utilizing prosecutorial discretion to not enforce immigration law is constitutional and legal, which I believe it is, then a future President utilizing prosecutorial discretion to not enforce tax law would also be constitutional.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. It's a stupid argument built on the false premise that Obama's action was something new when it was

not, and Executive Orders around immigration have been used by many Republican Presidents. It's box of rocks level thinking.

[Wella]

31. What Reagan did was a little different

Not defending Reagan here, but he did not extend the effects of a law to populations for it was not intended. He did, however, defer deporting children of undocumented workers who were eligible for amnesty. The Congressional amnesty bill had some unforeseen loopholes, and Reagan basically gave Congress time to fix the law by deferring the deportation of these children. The Executive Order in that case was not done to override Congress and change the substance of a law without Congressional action. It was an emergency action to prevent kids from being deported and separated from their parents, something Congress had not intended but which a poorly written bill had brought about.

Obama did something quite different: he changed immigration policy single handedly. Now you may, like I do, agree that the spirit of the policy is a good one. And you may be like me in thinking it does not go far enough. We really DO need an immigration overhaul and we really DO need to find a way for kids from Mexico who immigrate to California to become citizens and be part of the state. These band-aid bills (and executive orders) are just crap. If you live in California, you know that these folks live here and are part of the fabric here. It's an insult to continue to treat these folks as if they are criminals. /soapbox

However, Obama really overstepped here. Unlike Reagan, he wasn't trying to find a way to help Congress fix its legislation problem; he was actually creating new law. Whoever advised him to do this wasn't thinking about the long haul. Now, Congress can ignore real comprehensive immigration reform; they can just say, "The President's already done that," and focus on border security only.

[Sanity Claws]

49. Distinction without a difference

Obama invited congress to pass a bill to rectify just as saint Ronnie.
Same thing.

[Wella]

53. Very big difference Constitutionally (legally)

1. Obama's executive order creates a new, open-ended form of immigration relief; Reagan's merely granted temporary relief until Congress could pass legislation correcting unforeseen consequences of the first bill

2. Obama intended to create new immigration policy; Reagan did not intend to create new immigration policy; he just gave Congress time to do so.

3. The Constitution does not allow the President to create new immigration law from which Federal policies come; that power belongs to Congress (Ask anyone who runs a Federal program or deals with policy: all Federal agencies have a small army of lawyers whose job it is to make sure that any move a Federal agency makes follows legal statute, that is Congressional laws. If laws passed by Congress don't allow it, they can't do it.)

Obama seriously overstepped the executive role here, even with Bush's precedent of the "unitary executive."

Also, Obama didn't invite Congress to "fix" an existing law that was showing loopholes and creating emergencies. He wanted policy change and Congress said NO. As freaking grating as this Congress has been--and yes, they've been deliberately obstructionist, stubborn, and intractable--when Congress says NO that's NO.

That's why St. Ronnie had to run the Iran-Contra criminal enterprise. Congress said NO we are not funding the murderous Contras, and St. Ronnie said "Hell yes we are!" and illegally raised money by selling American weapons to the Iranians to do so. We had hearings about that end run around Congress.

I don't know that I would put Obama's statement on a par with Iran Contra--the intent of Obama's order is a good one--but it's not the same as Reagan's immigration Executive Order. When presidents overstep, we have hearings about it. Otherwise, the precedent is a very ominous one.

[Rstrstx]

59. Is it open ended?

I thought there was a three year time limit on the order. Or are you referring to something else?

[Wella]

63. Not three years only--"three years at a time" according to whitehouse.gov

Individuals will have the opportunity to request temporary relief from deportation and work authorization for three years at a time if they come forward and register, submit biometric data, pass background checks, pay fees, and show that their child was born before the date of this announcement.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/20/fact-sheet-immigration-accountability-executive-action

This is the actual policy according to the White House. It contains many things not in the 10-minute speech.

[unblock]

15. why on earth would they do that?

big corporations give republicans huge amounts of money to keep entrepreneurs down and at the mercy of big corporations.

big corporations give republicans huge amounts of money to enact loopholes that let them escape taxes while small companies (i.e., the competition) have far less ability to take advantage of such loopholes.

big corporations give republicans huge amounts of money to tilt the playing field to their advantage and the current corporate tax structure is part of that.

big corporations give republicans huge amounts of money to create the conditions whereby the only way a small company can take advantage of the loopholes is to sell themselves to a big corporation, allowing the big corporation to get a profit simply by being big and in a position to take advantage of these loopholes.

big corporations give republicans huge amounts of money to collect taxes from small companies and the middle class in order to pay for subsidies for big corporations. doesn't be taken in by their whining about high taxes. they love high taxes, just for everyone else. they want their own taxes to be lower only so that taxes need to be raised for other people, e.g., the competition.


in any event, the president has always had the authority not to enforce laws, whether based on principle or based on allocation of limited enforcement resources or even for political advantage.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

17. I don't think there is any counter to it

It's correct.

[treestar]

18. Not sure, because Obama is granting "deferred action" which is something

that is in the law he can do. So the POTUS could always do that for deportable foreigners.

But not collecting taxes isn't an option like that. As of not enforcing collection, that's probably been done, or settlements made with corporations making legal arguments they should not have to pay this or that tax. Prosecutorial discretion could apply to anything and likely often is used and doesn't make the news because it's not as interesting as immigrants seem to be to the media and the populace.

I think there was some case where Bush chose not to enforce OSHA laws, IIRR. We were kind of mad about that but that doesn't mean he couldn't get away with it.

[branford]

74. Prosecutorial discretion can solve the problems you identify.

President Ted Cruz or Rand Paul could simply order that "due to limited resources" the federal government will not prosecute, criminally or civilly, any number of matters, including:

-failure to pay certain corporate or income taxes
-breaches of environmental regulations
-obstructing abortion clinics
-firearms background check and related federal violations, etc.

A conservative president can also redirect resources to actively deport those immigrants protected by Obama, even using their registration with Obama's programs as a means of ready identification. Similarly, a conservative president could strictly enforce federal drug laws even in states that have legalized medicinal or recreational drugs and effectively set aside many EPA carbon regulations. Almost all of the above actions would certainly be supported by the Republican base as well as many independents if political feasibility is a deciding factor.

A "unitary president" is great when your man or woman is in control, but is frightening when the other party hold the reins.

I very much doubt that many here cheering the president's actions on immigration will feel similarly if a Republican is elected to the White House. Just because something is legal, and I believe the president's executive orders are lawful, does not make it wise nor account for precedent or long-term implications. Beware the slippery slope . . .

[treestar]

75. Not to worry as they are subject to the law

The courts decide if they are within the law or not.

People don't care that much if illegal immigrants stay. After all, they are still here anyway. And the executive can grant them deferred action and that's in his/her powers.

The environmental laws don't have anything of that type in them. Or, if they have executive discretion, then it's been exercised by Republican Presidents before.

[branford]

80. As I stated, I believe Obama's executive orders are likely legal.

I similarly believe that a Republican's executive and resulting prosecutorial discretion on matters important to many conservatives would be similarly legal. Nevertheless, the court arguments should be interesting and entertaining.

If a Republican wins the White House in the near future, I sadly expect a great deal of hypocrisy. Many of the liberal groups lauding the president's "bold action" and "leadership," and strongly defending the legality of the executive orders, will be the first to condemn any Republican "overreach" and "tyranny," and likely also first to file the lawsuits challenging such orders.

If a president can selectively enforce laws we don't like, they can do the same with laws we believe are important. Elections have consequences.

[treestar]

83. Theres a body of case law on this subject like many others

The courts decide whether or not they are legal. If they carry out the executive powers, they are legal. If they go beyond that, they are not. It depends on each order.

[Gman]

20. That's the problem in the right wing alternate reality.

Nothing is anything other than black and white. My response is a usual talking down to along the lines of if they don't know the answer to that I can't help them.

[baldguy]

21. The IRS is an independant govt agency; ICE s not.

The President can no more order the IRS not to collect taxes than he can order audits of political opponents.

[Nye Bevan]

27. That seems like a good argument.

The other thing I thought of since posting the OP is that it would be risky for corporations to take advantage of such an order, because a future Democratic president might well reverse it which would result in back taxes being payable along with substantial penalties for underpayment. Prudent corporations may well decide to ignore such a policy for this reason and continue to pay the full tax that they owe.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

41. It's not a good argument

Because it wouldn't be a matter of the President ordering the IRS not to collect full taxes, it would be a matter of the President ordering the DoJ to not prosecute companies that don't pay their full taxes.

[Wella]

55. +1

.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

28. I'm afraid that you're misinformed

The IRS is not an independent agency, it's an executive agency under the Department of the Treasury, just as ICE is under the Department of Homeland Security.

And even if it were an independent agency, it wouldn't be a matter of the President telling the IRS not to collect taxes - it would an issue of the President telling the DoJ not to prosecute those that didn't pay their taxes or only paid part of them.

Under his executive authority to exercise prosecutorial discretion, the scenario in the OP would be every bit as valid as the action just taken with regards to immigration.

[onenote]

82. +1

[Skeowes28]

23. It's easy

If the dems act like fucking assholes and block every nominee and obstruct the way that the gop currently they will be Auth to do so the presidents order was due to the lack of compromise

[Orrex]

25. It would be argued that the Prez is attacking the Congress

Since the Congress famously "controls the purse strings," they would argue that your hypothetical is an assault on the Legislative branch in a way that Obama's current action is not.

Cutting the government's income would directly undermine's the Congress itself, taking away the means by which it expresses its power, rather than preventing enforcement of a narrow and specific set of laws, as Obama is doing.


It would be clear grounds for impeachment.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

29. Impeachment?

You're kidding, right?

Not enforcing a law is not enforcing a law, and the President, any President, has that right when it comes to federal laws.

[Orrex]

39. Not kidding.

As I pointed out, defunding the Fed would be reasonably construed as a direct attack on the Government (i.e., treason), because it would mean that the President was seeking specifically to usurp the powers (to levy taxes) of the Legislature while preventing the Legislature from exercising its own power (of the purse).

Also, the mere fact that no Republican has attempted this is pretty strong evidence that TPTB drew this same conclusion long ago.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

60. Cutting taxes is not defunding the Federal government n/t

[Orrex]

61. Nor is it the sole authority of the President.

Since you've got all the answers, how would you address the OP's concerns?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

73. I don't have all the answers

And I've already stated elsewhere in the thread that there really is no way to counter the argument posed in the OP, because it's completely valid.

Immigration is not under the sole authority of the President either, but his executive powers give him prosecutorial discretion when it comes to prosecuting crimes. President Obama can use this for immigration, and he and any future President could use it as it relates to tax crimes.

[elleng]

26. The LAW provides that corporate taxes are not collected,

they don't NEED a repug president.

WE need real tax REFORM.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/18/us-usa-tax-ceopay-idUSKCN0J20CJ20141118

[deurbano]

86. Good one!

[Warren Stupidity]

33. Ok. So what?

[BeyondGeography]

35. If that's after a Senate Bill that passes 68-32 and there's enough votes in the House

to pass but the Speaker never brings the bill to a vote because his members are afraid of being primaried, you have the beginning of an argument. However, keeping five million families together is a somewhat more noble goal.

[JustAnotherGen]

37. We will cross that bridge when we get there

[HERVEPA]

38. Are you kidding? Silly argument. No counter necessary

Tons of executive orders implemented by every president. Why would this one affect anything differently?

[sendero]

45. The number of people who would disapprove...

.. of that EO would be orders of magnitude more than those who disapprove of Obama's EO.

Please don't act like the actual content of and EO and who it benefits doesn't matter.

[cheapdate]

47. Every law enforcement official makes choices.

From a single patrol officer to an executive overseeing an entire police force, all must decide how to prioritize their time and resources. Time and resources aren't infinite. Pursuing one set of priorities necessarily implies putting another set of priorities on the back burner.

A future Republican president could order that collection of corporate taxes not be enforced. There's nothing stopping him. Let him make that argument.

Our remedy for bad leadership is regular elections and impeachment if necessary.

Let the bastards try to impeach president Obama if they want. There's nothing stopping them.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

51. Easily. The immigration laws specifically give the president much more discretion

than the tax laws. Presidential discretion is built right into the immigration statutes, but not the tax laws.

[bluestateguy]

52. Presidents actually DO have that authority already (sort of)

That is, they can order their IRS to prioritize certain categories of tax audits and investigations over others.

Such as when George W. Bush's administration prioritized tax audits of poor people over auditing of middle class and wealthier people.

[ctaylors6]

62. I think

you make a good point. When I look at a legal issue like this, I try to substitute an issue that I would agree with for one I would disagree with to remove bias. Deferring deportation is not enforcing immigration law. To really analyze, you have to take out the arguments about it being for the good of people or because Congress didn't act. Substitute an issue like not enforcing non-violent gun laws - say background checks- or not enforcing something with tax collections like you used as an example. I haven't looked at the details to find the most apt analogy.

And in a brief I would find it very easy to distinguish Reagan's immigration order (not saying I'd agree or not). It affected about 100,000 families following 3 million affected by Congressional legislation. And I think the degree of non enforcement of laws matters. Saying not enforcing tax collection for 100,000 taxpayers would be very different than for 3-5 million.

[Pisces]

64. Concern noted, ho hum

[JaneyVee]

65. Corporations pay taxes?

[mikehiggins]

72. you seem to assume they won't do that anyway.

I doubt the GOP will rely on Obama's initiative to gut the corporate tax structure.

After all, its what John Galt would do.

And, no, I'm not being sarcastic.