I would love to see a President test this. I have a feeling that a President that did this would find he has all the authority needed to do so. Dissenting judges and members of Congress may find they don’t have the authority to keep their heads on their necks.
No, you don’t. This is anarchy. [quote=“NickViar, post:6984, topic:223365”]
I have a feeling that a President that did this would find he has all the authority needed to do so.
[/quote]
Not from the Constitution he doesn’t.
Woo hoo! The not-at-all-ironic libertarians-for-tyrants movement continues apace.
The myth of the Benevolent Dictator is, how shall l say…
a myth.
2 Likes
Yes, halting the income tax would truly be tyrannical. All tyrants demand that the citizens be left alone.
The income tax is a constitutionally permitted law duly passed by Congress and signed by the President. If a President unilaterally decides to pretend that law doesn’t exist, he’s a tyrant. Whether you happen to think the law is bad or not is completely irrelevant.
This is Rule of Law 101. How are you aware of it?
I’ve never even heard this myth, but I’ll agree.
Tyrant: a cruel and oppressive ruler.
Cruel: willfully causing pain or suffering to others, or feeling no concern about it.
Oppressive: unjustly inflicting hardship and constraint, especially on a minority or other subordinate group.
Sorry, but I don’t see anything cruel or oppressive about letting people keep their money.
Sorry, everybody has to grow up some day and stop living in a fantasy.
That’s fine, but it doesn’t make a President ordering the cessation of tax collecting tyrannical.
I think this is pretty spot on. Everyone is so quick to blame illegal immigrants (for fairly good reason) and very few seem to want these businesses that break the law tracked down in the same way.
If you remove the incentive to illegally immigrate, you cripple illegal immigration.
2 Likes
Yep, it does.
To be fair, it’s only tyrannical if he isn’t stopped from executing it. If a POTUS simply orders it without it being carried out, he’s just a regular moron.
I have no problem being proven wrong, so feel free to do it. Go back and look at the definition of “tyrant”(and the definitions of the words in that definition) and point out how stopping tax collection for even a year would fit. Call it “unconstitutional” all you want, but it would not be tyrannical. Unconstitutional =/= Tyrannical, just like Constitutional =/= Not Tyrannical.
CRUEL or oppressive rule.
Cruel: WILLYFULLY causing pain or suffering to others, or feeling no concern about it.
Exceeding the power of the office, removing taxes that would cause considerable blowback to the segment of the community that relies on the tax revenue due to the lack of incoming funds.
Please explain how eliminating taxes for a year (which cuts the cash stream to people that rely on it) in an effort that exceeds the limitations of the office, isn’t “Cruel rule.”
I disagree, because the moment he does it, he’s made clear he believes he is the sole authority to decide what is right and wrong for his subjects.
1 Like
Fair enough. That’s a good point.
Your version of tyranny has been dumbed down to nothing more than “laws making me do stuff I don’t like” - that isn’t tyranny. Tyranny involves a despot ruling arbitrarily and oppressively. The fact that a tyrant happens to arbitrarily nullify a law that happens to benefit you doesn’t change the fact that it was a tyrannical exercise of power he doesn’t have.
1 Like
Extra credit for all caps.
And that’s my point to NickViar - a President nullifying the income tax isn’t simply an act defying a tax law - it’s an act defying the very system of government we agreed on, one that expressly includes restraints on his power.
2 Likes
I was considering bolding it instead, but I’m a sucker for dat caps lock.