Quote:
|
But if you take broad view that the intent of the 1st Amendment is to tell the government not to interfere with the press ...
|
There have been a ton of court cases on this.
Unless whatever they were publishing regarded:
Quote:
|
publication of sailing dates of transports or the number or location of troops
|
The government is not allowed to interfere as I understand case law.
Seems unlikely since the government won't even say what it was. If people were placed in peril over the publication then they should have approached the editors and worked through them. This looks like something else.
With the IRS case it appears to be a much broader and more clear case of suppression.
They fired the current head of the IRS Non-profit group. Another meaningless gesture. He had been there eight days. The old head is now in charge of the tax office for Affordable Health Care Act.
Quote:
|
The ObamaCare official now drawing scrutiny had been serving as commissioner of the office responsible for tax-exempt organizations from 2009 to 2012 -- the division included the group that targeted Tea Partiers -- and has since left to serve as director of the IRS' Affordable Care Act division. That unit is responsible for enforcing parts of the health care law, including the fines associated with the so-called individual mandate -- the requirement to buy health insurance.
|
Read more:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...#ixzz2TYS7EGG3
While I understand this issue is highly political it is also bipartisan. If one side allows the other to openly abuse the office of the executive the other shoe will drop eventually.