Posted on 04/19/2015 5:24:18 PM PDT by Patton@Bastogne
.
Could Ted Cruz end IRS 501-C3 Church political limits with Obama-style "Prosecutorial Discretion" such as Obama used to create Executive Amnesty for Illegal Aliens ?
Could (President) Ted Cruz effectively abolish the "Johnson Amendment of 1954" through "executive action" ?
======================================
POTUS Obama has claimed "Prosecutorial Discretion" to effectively create "Executive Amnesty".
The New York Times and prominent Liberals have defended Obama's actions as properly within Obama's presidential "Constitutional authority".
Senator Ted Cruz, in questioning U.S. Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch, asked her a couple of questions to this effect:
Since Loretta Lynch and President Obama support the concept of expanded "Prosecutorial Discretion", would it be OK if a future president:
1) declined to enforce major portions of the IRS Federal Tax code ?
2) declined to enforce major portions of EPA regulations for the state of Texas ?
Nominee Loretta Lynch refused to even submit an answer to Ted Cruz's questions.
======================================
Now for the question at hand, the IRS enforcement of Church political activity restrictions (IRS 501-C3, et al) which were effectively created with the "Johnson Amendment of 1954" (see link below).
If it's OK for Obama to NOT enforce Federal Immigration Law, then wouldn't it also be OK for a future U.S. President to order the IRS to NOT enforce IRS 501-C3 (et al) ...
and allow U.S tax-exempt Churches to KEEP their tax-exempt status YET freely engage in political activity ?
What are your thoughts ?
If you have any contacts with the campaigns of any 2016 GOP presidential candidates, perhaps you could point them to this Free Republic post.
======================================
Internet Link to the Johnson Amendment of 1954
http://www.speakupmovement.org/church/LearnMore/details/5252.
.
I.
R. a TED CRUZ for President 2016 abolish the I.R.S.
Supporter
Presidents and members of Congress swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Few members of Congress come close to actually doing so and really, none of the Presidents in my lifetime have. Including Reagan. Most view it as a game of passing as many laws or executive orders that they personally agree with and hoping that the unelected judiciary will let them get away with it. And for the most part, the judiciary does.
So yes, a President who was actually interested in upholding his or her oath could do a great deal of good. That would also be a once in a century President.
President Cruz should not use Executive Orders to change the law of the land.
He should introduce legislation to accomplish the deconstruction of the LIEberal/Socialist/Marxist/Fascist state that has been forced upon us.
Said legislation should be written prior to his inauguration, and be ready for House and Senate votes immediately!
Furthermore, any and all illegal and unconstitutional Executive Orders that are in place on January 20, 2017 should be immediately cancelled as President Cruz first order of business.
And, in the process, he should make it abundantly clear that there are limits to Presidential Executive Orders.
The USA is a Republic, not a Dictatorship!
I’m reading your post and doing the happy dance!
501-C3 held over the head of churches to keep their political opinions silent? Money for cooperation with the regime? Why would anyone with a clear moral head allow themselves to be silenced for money?
I say “Pay the tax and keep the regime out of the church.” Too bad we can’t just have St. Peter catch a fish and pull the coins out of its mouth, but the tax savings are not worth being silenced.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.