Reply
Wed 2 Jan, 2008 06:59 am
Suppose the president were to tell the American people that the country is facing a fiscal crisis because Congress overspends. Suppose further that the president were to tell us we can withhold a percentage of our income taxes (say in proportion to the percentage of the federal budget to which we object to on an individual basis) and then issues a blanket pardon for anyone that withholds part of their taxes?
What would Congress do?
What Congress COULD do is start impeachment hearings.
What Congress could and would do is laugh. The President has no authority to dictate tax rates, or idiot-child policies such as Herr Flaja has outlined.
The president can't pardon people that haven't yet been charged with a crime. (See the flap about the phone companies breaking the law in giving info the the govt. Congress has to pass a law to give them protection.)
If GW Bush(or any sitting president) were to do what you proposed, the minute he leaves office the people could be charged with a crime since the law was never changed and he would no longer have the power to pardon them.
I dunno about that. I tend to agree with the tax protester types that the federal govt has no right to collect taxes. The problem comes when you try to disagree with them - you are subject to a myriad of other laws they've made up to protect their litigious asses.
Even if you avoid criminal charges or get a pardon for not paying the taxes it still won't exempt you from the taxes you owe and the interest and penalties for not paying when due.
Most taxpayers who don't pay are not charged with crimes but rather get civil judgments against them. The President can't pardon you in that case.
woiyo wrote:What Congress COULD do is start impeachment hearings.
What law would the president be violating? What impeachable offense would the president be committing?
flaja wrote:woiyo wrote:What Congress COULD do is start impeachment hearings.
What law would the president be violating? What impeachable offense would the president be committing?
The Constitution. The president does not write laws, Congress does. He can't 'declare' changes in laws as you propose. No authority exists for him to do so.
You really should understand basic facts about our society if you wish to participate in the politics forum.
Cycloptichorn
The only definition of impeachable offenses is treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors--try reading the constitution some time, it doesn't specify the violation of laws.
Article Two, Section 4, Disqualification, reads, in its entirety:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
What a maroon.
parados wrote:The president can't pardon people that haven't yet been charged with a crime. (See the flap about the phone companies breaking the law in giving info the the govt. Congress has to pass a law to give them protection.)
On the contrary:
President Gerald Ford gave former President Richard Nixon a full pardon for any crimes that Nixon may have committed while he was president. Richard Nixon was pardoned without ever having been charged with a crime.
I believe President George H. W. Bush pardoned Cap Weinberger for any and all role Weinberger may have played in the Iran-Contra Affair- when Weinberger had not been charged with any crime. This pardon was designed to stop the independent counsel's ongoing investigation of Weinberger.
Quote:If GW Bush(or any sitting president) were to do what you proposed, the minute he leaves office the people could be charged with a crime since the law was never changed and he would no longer have the power to pardon them.
If you have a presidential pardon for anything that you have done or may have done, you cannot be charged with any crime pertaining to what you have done or may have done.
parados wrote:Even if you avoid criminal charges or get a pardon for not paying the taxes it still won't exempt you from the taxes you owe and the interest and penalties for not paying when due.
But with a pardon, you wouldn't be subjected to legal punishment for violating the law that says you have to pay the taxes, interest or criminal penalties.
Quote:Most taxpayers who don't pay are not charged with crimes but rather get civil judgments against them.
Is that why Leona Helmsley and Al Capone were jailed?
Quote:The President can't pardon you in that case.
He can direct federal prosecutors to drop lawsuits.
And if the government runs out of money because people are withholding their taxes, how will the government be able to keep the courts in operation so it can sue people?
Setanta wrote:The only definition of impeachable offenses is treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors--try reading the constitution some time, it doesn't specify the violation of laws.
Article Two, Section 4, Disqualification, reads, in its entirety:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
What a maroon.
I am not sure but I would think that if a President was to tell the citizenry to break the law, that just might qualify as a "high crime and/or misdemeanor" which would be an impeachable offense in the eyes of the Congress.
But then again, this is a silly post.
Oh, i certainly agree that this is an idiotic thread.
My point is that the constitution does not specify a violation of any statute as a grounds for impeachment. One could make the case that violation of a law might be evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors, but the basis upon which the House would impeach any public official need not be a violation of law.
flaja wrote:parados wrote:Even if you avoid criminal charges or get a pardon for not paying the taxes it still won't exempt you from the taxes you owe and the interest and penalties for not paying when due.
But with a pardon, you wouldn't be subjected to legal punishment for violating the law that says you have to pay the taxes, interest or criminal penalties.
Quote:Most taxpayers who don't pay are not charged with crimes but rather get civil judgments against them.
Is that why Leona Helmsley and Al Capone were jailed?
2 people does NOT constitute MOST taxpayers
Quote:
Quote:The President can't pardon you in that case.
He can direct federal prosecutors to drop lawsuits.
I guess if he appointed himself president for life then your scenario could well work.
Otherwise the minute he leaves office it's a whole new ball game.
Unless a court has dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice it can be refiled.
Quote:
And if the government runs out of money because people are withholding their taxes, how will the government be able to keep the courts in operation so it can sue people?
The way it does now, by borrowing.
Setanta wrote:Oh, i certainly agree that this is an idiotic thread.
My point is that the constitution does not specify a violation of any statute as a grounds for impeachment. One could make the case that violation of a law might be evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors, but the basis upon which the House would impeach any public official need not be a violation of law.
This is true. That is why a President was impeached for lying about a blow job/sex or what the meaning of "is", is.
Therefore, I would suspect a Congress could have a field day if a President told the public "DO NOT PAY YOUR TAXES", which is a clear violation of the law.
If no one paid taxes....
Who would pay for the freakin war!
What war?
or rather
Which war?
Well, Woiyo, i would just observe that the Clinton impeachment backfired on the Republican Congress, that the Democratic Congress doesn't enjoy any appreciably greater degree of respect than any previous Congress, and that no Congress is likely to attempt to impeach any sitting President for a long time to come.
I do agree, however, that Congress certainly should attempt to impeach any jackass who seriously offered advice like that to the people.
woiyo wrote:Setanta wrote:The only definition of impeachable offenses is treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors--try reading the constitution some time, it doesn't specify the violation of laws.
Article Two, Section 4, Disqualification, reads, in its entirety:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
What a maroon.
I am not sure but I would think that if a President was to tell the citizenry to break the law, that just might qualify as a "high crime and/or misdemeanor" which would be an impeachable offense in the eyes of the Congress.
But then again, this is a silly post.
If John F. Kennedy had told black people that he would pardon any one of them that used a water fountain in Washington, D.C. that were legally reserved for white people, would he have been breaking the law?
parados wrote:2 people does NOT constitute MOST taxpayers
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2002/April/02_tax_212.htm
"people do go to prison for tax evasion"
Quote:Otherwise the minute he leaves office it's a whole new ball game.
Unless a court has dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice it can be refiled.
You are assuming that the government would never run out of money as a consequence of this tax protest.
Quote:The way it does now, by borrowing.
The tax protest would have to be brought to an end somehow or the government would never have money to pay back what it borrows. Its credit would go to zero and no one in their right mind would loan money to it.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace