Sure I do. This is a terms of employment issue, not a constitutional issue.
You don't believe in your own constitution? How sad.
You know I just spent some time looking over the Constitution and I don't see anything about the Constitutional right of political action groups to get tax exempt status from the IRS. Your knowledge of the Constitution is yet again proven to be sub par.
The government treating Conservatives and liberals differently is a problem. Targeting the Tea Party and ignoring the progressive groups is a violation of the Constitution.
Nice to see you don't believe in free speech.
That was my initial thought as well, clear back almost a year ago when Lerner first took the Fifth: http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35044570&postcount=491Am I the only one that thinks that if a government employee needs to plead the fifth over the performance of their job duties that they should have their employment terminated?
Look again. This time check out the 1st amendment.
Fern
The government treating Conservatives and liberals differently is a problem. Targeting the Tea Party and ignoring the progressive groups is a violation of the Constitution.
Nice to see you don't believe in free speech.
Actually it does. SCOTUS ruled that money (i.e. the ability to have one's free speech heard) equates to free speech and is thus protected as free speech. The IRS (with White House collusion or complacency, we do not yet know which) decided that some animals should be more equal than others and thus should enjoy financial benefits not awarded to other animals based solely on the political bent of the animals. (For the metaphorically challenged, animals here refer to human political groups a la Animal Farm, not actual animals.)Whether or not they are tax exempt does not affect their First Amendment rights.
SNIP
Actually it does. SCOTUS ruled that money (i.e. the ability to have one's free speech heard) equates to free speech and is thus protected as free speech. The IRS (with White House collusion or complacency, we do not yet know which) decided that some animals should be more equal than others and thus should enjoy financial benefits not awarded to other animals based solely on the political bent of the animals. (For the metaphorically challenged, animals here refer to human political groups a la Animal Farm, not actual animals.)
Actually it does. SCOTUS ruled that money (i.e. the ability to have one's free speech heard) equates to free speech and is thus protected as free speech. The IRS (with White House collusion or complacency, we do not yet know which) decided that some animals should be more equal than others and thus should enjoy financial benefits not awarded to other animals based solely on the political bent of the animals. (For the metaphorically challenged, animals here refer to human political groups a la Animal Farm, not actual animals.)
Which is totally a good reason why the IRS should decide that left-friendly groups skip taxes and right-friendly groups pay up. Really. I'm not just humoring you.You know I just spent some time looking this up as well and I am surprised. But apparently, even though I don't have tax exempt status, I still have free speech. I know, I was shocked too.
In the case of Lerner, that "certain criteria" was not being a right-leaning group.Hogwash. Money itself was never an issue, but rather the anonymity of money. Non-profits must meet certain criteria for their donors to be anonymous.
Teatards all twisted about it? Of course. That's because their faux grassroots image probably doesn't match well with their funding sources. Donor anonymity is a key ingredient in the illusion.
Actually it does. SCOTUS ruled that money (i.e. the ability to have one's free speech heard) equates to free speech and is thus protected as free speech. The IRS (with White House collusion or complacency, we do not yet know which) decided that some animals should be more equal than others and thus should enjoy financial benefits not awarded to other animals based solely on the political bent of the animals. (For the metaphorically challenged, animals here refer to human political groups a la Animal Farm, not actual animals.)
In the case of Lerner, that "certain criteria" was not being a right-leaning group.
Whether or not they are tax exempt does not affect their First Amendment rights.
Nice to see you don't support the 5th Amendment and we already knew you didn't understand the First. Then again apparently neither does Fern.
A new report by the Congressional Research Service finds that Rep. Darrell Issa's (R-Calif.) probe of the Internal Revenue Service is veering into territory last trod by Congress in the McCarthy era
huff n puff post, you guys are a riot.
huff n puff post, you guys are a riot.
I'm not sure if you're being willfully dishonest, or are merely too intellectually crippled to think for yourself, but the information provided does not support your claim that Lerner provided confidential information. If you read the emails, you will find that they explicitly ask only for publicly available information. You've been duped yet again.Well, there are a number of new developments. Elijah Cummings is right at the heart of the latest. Lois Lerner fed confidential True the Vote tax information to Mr. Cummings. He had denied this up to the point that recent email releases indicated otherwise. Looks like he's been running interference within the investigation to cover his own ass.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...the-vote-to-democrat-elijah-cummings-n1822247
Just to clarify, the FBI is conducting an investigation. The Republicans are putting on a show for the rubes. Get your peanuts.Yesterday, the House Ways and Means Committee voted to hold Lois Lerner in contempt. There are calls for her arrest.
House Republicans won't rule out arresting Lois Lerner if Justice Department doesn't
It's clear that Republicans are not backing down. This investigation will run it's course. In question now is whether Holder will do his job in regards to Lois Lerner. I'm sure he'll do whatever Obama wishes him to do.
Well, there are a number of new developments. Elijah Cummings is right at the heart of the latest. Lois Lerner fed confidential True the Vote tax information to Mr. Cummings. He had denied this up to the point that recent email releases indicated otherwise. Looks like he's been running interference within the investigation to cover his own ass.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...the-vote-to-democrat-elijah-cummings-n1822247
Yesterday, the House Ways and Means Committee voted to hold Lois Lerner in contempt. There are calls for her arrest.
House Republicans won't rule out arresting Lois Lerner if Justice Department doesn't
It's clear that Republicans are not backing down. This investigation will run it's course. In question now is whether Holder will do his job in regards to Lois Lerner. I'm sure he'll do whatever Obama wishes him to do.
You mean arrest her for exercising her constitutional rights?
BTW - The House does not have the authority to arrest people. You know that ole' separation of powers thingy
I'm not sure if you're being willfully dishonest, or are merely too intellectually crippled to think for yourself, but the information provided does not support your claim that Lerner provided confidential information. If you read the emails, you will find that they explicitly ask only for publicly available information. You've been duped yet again.
Just to clarify, the FBI is conducting an investigation. The Republicans are putting on a show for the rubes. Get your peanuts.
You mean arrest her for exercising her constitutional rights?
BTW - The House does not have the authority to arrest people. You know that ole' separation of powers thingy
lol IRS Benghazi Fast&Furious