Replies

With the balance of powers being what they are, I'm not sure how the government would cope should Obama be found illegitimate so late in his presidency. But I'm fairly confident that many would raise the legitimacy of acts he signed into law, executive orders, etc.

The problem of the many having reservations about presidential legitimacy is that no citizen so far has managed to be granted "standing" in federal court. Ergo, there is no "release valve" at the level of the citizenry. Thus the problem continues to fester and metastasize....

In the ideal scenario, a State steps up to the plate, and challenges the authority of presidentially authorized legislation that intrudes on its sovereignty, while creating unfunded liabilities for the State that must be borne by its own citizens.

I'd give pride of place to Texas on this one. After all, Texas is the only sovereign nation-state that ever joined the Union. She did not join it to diminish the liberties of her people.

But it's just a dream, just a dream....

Dearest sister in Christ, you wrote, "but that would not prevent Congress from enacting new law even retroactively (as it does with the tax code)." Please elaborate???

Thank you ever so much, dearest sister in Christ, for writing!

I strongly agree with you that Texas should be the one that makes the challenge on the very principles you raise - should any challenge be made. The State of Texas retained considerable authority and right and therefore, duty, because of its status at the time it joined the United States (e.g. offshore property, parks, right to secede or break into multiple states.)

Dearest sister in Christ, you wrote, "but that would not prevent Congress from enacting new law even retroactively (as it does with the tax code)." Please elaborate???

Historically, the Tax Code provided that laws passed e.g. in a summer session (and hence, regulations) would be applied by default to the current tax year, e.g. ending on December 31st. The wording was changed considerably in 1996, but it still provides for retroactivity under the U.S. Code, Title 26, Section 7805 (b):

It used to say simply "The Secretary may prescribe the extent, if any, to which any ruling or regulation, relating to the internal revenue laws, shall be applied without retroactive effect."

But it now reads:

(b) Retroactivity of regulations

(1) In general

Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, no temporary, proposed, or final regulation relating to the internal revenue laws shall apply to any taxable period ending before the earliest of the following dates:

(A) The date on which such regulation is filed with the Federal Register.

(B) In the case of any final regulation, the date on which any proposed or temporary regulation to which such final regulation relates was filed with the Federal Register.

(C) The date on which any notice substantially describing the expected contents of any temporary, proposed, or final regulation is issued to the public.

(2) Exception for promptly issued regulations

Paragraph (1) shall not apply to regulations filed or issued within 18 months of the date of the enactment of the statutory provision to which the regulation relates.

(3) Prevention of abuse

The Secretary may provide that any regulation may take effect or apply retroactively to prevent abuse.

(4) Correction of procedural defects

The Secretary may provide that any regulation may apply retroactively to correct a procedural defect in the issuance of any prior regulation.

(5) Internal regulations

The limitation of paragraph (1) shall not apply to any regulation relating to internal Treasury Department policies, practices, or procedures.

(6) Congressional authorization

The limitation of paragraph (1) may be superseded by a legislative grant from Congress authorizing the Secretary to prescribe the effective date with respect to any regulation.

(7) Election to apply retroactively

The Secretary may provide for any taxpayer to elect to apply any regulation before the dates specified in paragraph (1).

(8) Application to rulings

The Secretary may prescribe the extent, if any, to which any ruling (including any judicial decision or any administrative determination other than by regulation) relating to the internal revenue laws shall be applied without retroactive effect.

Notably, Congress retains the authority to make tax law with retroactive effect in #6 above. The #8 item basically means if the court makes a decision about a tax matter that applies to your tax filings, the decision applies to you retroactively unless the Secretary says it doesn't. If the USSC decided a certain deduction was UnConstitutional, for instance, not only the plaintiff would have to cough up the tax but so would everyone else. By normal practice, though, the Secretary will not reopen closed tax filings but rather let it be applied to pending similar litigation.

The #7 item, IMHO, gives the Secretary way too much authority to be biased in favor of select taxpayers.

For a history of the changes to this section of the tax code: US Code (Cornell)

Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!

In Hollster the "blogging and twittering" judge, Robertson, assumed that there was standing in assrting that he did have subject matter jurisdiction because of the federal interpleader act and then dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure, in his opinion, to state a case, now on appeal.

This seems to be the only case not dismissed for want of standing but for another reason going to the merits. I wonder why this has not been taken note of on Free Republic. it does not seem unimportant. The defendants Soetoro a/k/a Obama and Biden did not appeal that finding although they will raise it on appeal. As an issue it was not put before the Court of Appeals by the parties although the Court of Appeals is likely to raise it on its own.