Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There’s the usual ignorance of the law in this thread, but it’s running rampant at a record pace. Here’s the statute, 26 USC 6103. Here’s a link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6103
Scroll down to subsection (f)(1). Don’t see any showing of justification, much less a warrant requirement. There is a requirement that the committee only view the return or return information in closed executive session.
I’m surprised no one in the West Wing has thought to read the next subsection.
Similar return disclosure laws have routinely been held to not violate the 4th amendment. This one would be too,which is probably why Trump’s people aren’t fighting this in court; they know they’d lose.
Which comment made you think ANY of that exactly? You are a radical leftists with pure disdain for anyone who doesn't get in line with how you perceive the country should work. Before your crowd shoe horned Hillary onto this country, and inevitably ensuring Trump as president, I was a registered Democrat and I still vote Democrat for local elections.
You people who think it is okay to weaponize the federal government against your foes disgust me. That is exactly what this thread is about; the Democrats in Congress are attempting to usile a law to circumvent the basics of privacy enshrined to us in the Constitution. Trump is a moron and a liar, he will be beaten unless you radicals keep showing your true colors.
Because you were making an absolute declaration over the unconstitutionality of a law that’s been on the books for nearly a 100 years. It is proper for a plaintiff to challenge the law but neither you nor I have a clue as to how it will eventually be sorted out. The posters who are the most vehement about Constitutional Law that post on this forum in general, don’t know a damned thing about the law, and it’s obvious in their posts. Most of those “legal experts” oppose almost everything that has occurred in American History for the last 150 to 200 years. If I have lumped you with the wrong crowd then I apologize, but you’re acting just like these pseudo lawyers always do. It’s always black and white to them with no shades of gray.
That doesn’t exist in the real world.
Have a good night.
Last edited by Bureaucat; 04-14-2019 at 07:50 PM..
Who knows? The point is, Congress has a right to them by law. Besides, Trump himself said many times he didn't have a problem with them being released. Until he did.
Because you were making an absolute declaration over the unconstitutionality of a law that’s been on the books for nearly a 100 years. It is proper for a plaintiff to challenge the law but neither you nor I have a clue as to how it will eventually be sorted out. The posters who are the most vehement about Constitutional Law that post on this forum in general, don’t know a damned thing about the law, and it’s obvious in their posts. Most of those “legal experts” oppose almost everything that has occurred in American History for the last 150 to 200 years. If I have lumped you with the wrong crowd then I apologize, but you’re acting just like these pseudo lawyers always do. It’s always black and white to them with no shades of gray.
That doesn’t exist in the real word.
Have a good night.
Garbage in, garbage out. All he has to say is other people are ignorant.
1 ,laws can be on the books for a damn long time before they are ruled unconstitutional. Jim Crow laws are a prime example. 2) the Constitution evolves the right to privacy has expanded by judicial decision since the law in question was passed. Roe v Wade is the most notable case that expanded the zones of privacy. How can you argue that the Fourth is applicable in Roe but not here? 3) Constitutional laws can be used in an unconstitutional manner. A law against speeding cannot be selectively enforced against a segment of the population or simply a selected individual.
His argument seems to be aimed at those who rail against violations of the original intent of the Constitution but here the primary argument is the same arguments made in Roe v Wade which most liberals defend to the extreme.
That silly little thing Trump would like to eliminate or dictate: The Law
Trump would like to displace all our laws, with his own versions of them. They would be designed to serve his personal interests and of his henchmen and those of the rest of us be damned!
The problem with your argument godofthunder is that his tax returns will not be made public. Only a select few on the House Ways and Means Committee will see it for the purpose of oversight. It is illegal for anyone on the committee to release the information. The law was put in place for a check on sketchy presidents. No one is above the law and that includes any president trying to bend the rules.
Trump's now phony three year long audit is no excuse, nor is the Honey Hucka Boo Boo spin that the committee wouldn't understand Trump's tax returns. That's what accountants are for honey child.
Now, can a committee pull a presidents tax return for political purposes? No. There must be "legitimate legislative purpose." Neal is claiming that the committee is trying to understand how the IRS audits presidential tax returns. Okay, but then why returns for 6 years? Maybe there's something else that can't be made public?
So Trump knows that his returns won't be made public, so what is he afraid of? What if Trump is engaging in criminal activity? What if oh I don't know. lets say his personal fixer supplied some damning information to Congress and the Ways and Means Committee needs to explore those tax returns to get to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Should Trump be able to circumvent that scrutiny and the rule of law? No way. Maybe that's why the committee is requesting Trump's personal and business returns? Trump is obviously afraid of something and anyone who condones or wants to protect a criminal is deplorable.
Neal is specific in his request for the returns. " the HWMC is considering legislative proposals and conducting oversight related to our Federal tax laws, including, but not limited to, the extent to which the IRS audits and enforces the Federal tax laws against a President." (Nixon received a relatively easy audit and grossly underpaid what he owed .) The reason for a 6 year period is to compare return information before and after his presidency.
It's interesting to watch what could very well be a criminal enterprise unravel. Had "we the people" not voted in a Democratic congress? Protecting a criminal should never be the "American way." Lets get to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
The problem with your argument godofthunder is that his tax returns will not be made public. Only a select few on the House Ways and Means Committee will see it for the purpose of oversight. It is illegal for anyone on the committee to release the information. The law was put in place for a check on sketchy presidents. No one is above the law and that includes any president trying to bend the rules.
Trump's now phony three year long audit is no excuse, nor is the Honey Hucka Boo Boo spin that the committee wouldn't understand Trump's tax returns. That's what accountants are for honey child.
Now, can a committee pull a presidents tax return for political purposes? No. There must be "legitimate legislative purpose." Neal is claiming that the committee is trying to understand how the IRS audits presidential tax returns. Okay, but then why returns for 6 years? Maybe there's something else that can't be made public?
So Trump knows that his returns won't be made public, so what is he afraid of? What if Trump is engaging in criminal activity? What if oh I don't know. lets say his personal fixer supplied some damning information to Congress and the Ways and Means Committee needs to explore those tax returns to get to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Should Trump be able to circumvent that scrutiny and the rule of law? No way. Maybe that's why the committee is requesting Trump's personal and business returns? Trump is obviously afraid of something and anyone who condones or wants to protect a criminal is deplorable.
Neal is specific in his request for the returns. " the HWMC is considering legislative proposals and conducting oversight related to our Federal tax laws, including, but not limited to, the extent to which the IRS audits and enforces the Federal tax laws against a President." (Nixon received a relatively easy audit and grossly underpaid what he owed .) The reason for a 6 year period is to compare return information before and after his presidency.
It's interesting to watch what could very well be a criminal enterprise unravel. Had "we the people" not voted in a Democratic congress? Protecting a criminal should never be the "American way." Lets get to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
You guys are so damn crazy and uninformed. His PERSONAL taxes won't show any of his business stuff. It will just show what he PERSONALLY takes/took as income from those businesses.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
