Posted on 12/13/2019 1:46:21 PM PST by entropy12
The Supreme Court announced Friday that it will take up President Trump’s broad claims of protection from investigation, raising the prospect of a landmark election-year ruling on the limits of presidential power.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
No, also through common sense and the historical roles of public legislatures.
As Heritage says:
”Congressional oversight, derived from the implied powers in the U.S. Constitution and conducted since the earliest days of our Republic, is an essential tool in maintaining the separation of powers. In the decades since the New Deal, oversight has taken on additional importance as a needed restraint on the ever-expanding administrative state. During the Constitutional Convention, George Mason referred to this authority when he said that Members of Congress “are not only Legislators but they possess inquisitorial powers. They must meet frequently to inspect the Conduct of the public offices.” This important investigatory role includes the review, monitoring, and close scrutiny of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation, as well as anywhere that federal tax dollars flow, to ensure faithful compliance with congressional intent.”
A position that’s long been upheld by SCOTUS and recognized by all three branches.
Does Congress have oversight authority if an executive declines to comply with their demands, or the demands of the court?
I think we might be about to find out.
If SCOTUS says the accounting firm has to provide the documents they will, or face criminal penalties.
a good SCOTUS decision coincident with a bunch of Durham indictments this coming summer would tie up his 1st term with a neat little bow
Because they decided it would take too long.
These cases illustrate why. The original subpoenas were issued months ago and we probably won’t have SCOTUS’ answer until next summer.
The Dems didn’t want to put impeachment on hold for 9 months.
“If SCOTUS says the accounting firm has to provide the documents they will, or face criminal penalties.”
While that would be likely, the penalty would only be incurred if the executive decides to enforce it.
The Executive could also declare “Executive Privilege” and have Treasury, SEC, and every associated regulatory agency issue an order to all to NOT release anything.
If you were the target of such conflicting orders, what would you do? Would you ask yourself, who can hurt me? Knowing that Congress cannot single out any entity, but the executive regularly exercises that discretion.
Of course it’s a safe bet that the USSC will not issue an order to disclose POTUS private financial information.
My Grandfather went through the Bolshevik Revolution in Ukraine.
He said their slogan was “For The People” and then they came and took everything the middle class had. Their food and livestock. (And my Grandfather’s white stallion that rrreally pissed him off. His first job in the US was in the WWI army.)
Incidentally, “For The People” was Kamal Harris’s campaign slogan.
Speaks volumes.
I keep reminding my liberal friends that someday there will be another Democrat President (though hopefully not in my lifetime). If the Dems win this fight, what will keep every district attorney in every Republican controlled county in the U.S. from subpoenaing years of tax and accounting records for the next Democrat President?
The only response I have gotten so far is, “Democrat good! Orange man bad!!!”
Sure, but if POTUS ever blatantly rejected the entire concept of rule of law like that I trust Congress would impeach and remove in short order.
Especially given a Republican-nominated SCOTUS majority.
Also, as others have noted the records being sought are from before Trump was POTUS so executive privilege doesn’t apply.
i wonder if as this wanders thru SC system we lose one or more of the current judges and get any new judge(s)?
Generally we’ve always gotten those records - at least the tax records.
No subpoenas required.
Personal privacy under the 4th Amendment fully comports with the law. And the Rule of Law that we all cherish.
Congress has provided no probable cause.
Besides, the courts are not the sole arbiters of the law.
If a President was to do this, stating the Congressional subpoena and Court Order were unlawful, and then NOT be removed from office, it would be seen eternally as lawful.
And that’s precisely what Obama would do.
We can always hope, PDJT get to appoint 1 or 2 more justices in his 1st term. If not, if he gets re-elected, at least 2 replacements coming. You know who they are.
The liberal hate for PDJT is monumental. It borders on insanity. And therefore it is neither rational nor logical.
The other party to the suit is New York and not Congress. I believe they requested the information as part of a criminal investigation.
True. It's been done voluntarily by every president and candidate since Nixon but nothing requires them to do so.
Unless our justice system has gone bonkers, any request for any document has to be justified for the need. To request tax records of an individual by a prosecutor would need to show the reason tax records are critical.
Such was the case with Al Capone. He had way too many assets but no record of having paid any taxes.
The articles of impeachment do not claim tax fraud by Trump. There is no evidence IRS has that Trump has too many assets without having paid sufficient taxes. If that was the case, you can bet your bippy the Obama IRS would have exposed it. Therefore a fishing expedition by 1/113th of the government (House of Reps is 435,is 1/6th of gov’t, Judiciary committee democrats number 23 or so) to force Trump to deliver his tax returns to Judiciary committee will never fly.
If the NYSD prosecutor can prove to a judge/SCOTUS that Trump has way more assets in relation to taxes paid, only then there is a need to get the tax returns.
A local judge can always rule anything, but a significant rulings get over-turned by higher courts.
Before they became Bolsheviks, they were known as social democrats. And I guess it made no difference that the Nazis were socialists. Sure they might have deviated from the “noble principals” of socialism once they gained power, but power does that every time. And socialism requires that the government have total power to collect and redistribute. They do very well with the collecting part; it’s the redistributing part that gets them every time.
The constitution is silent on Congressional oversight. It is considered inherit in that Congress legislates and funds programs. However, the intrusive oversight today was never contemplated by the founders. Remember the founders expected Congress to meet a couple of months and the Executive would handle everything except for their need to make new laws and approve funding. A full time Congress was a fear of the founders especially full-time legislators who had no interests in the daily business affairs of citizens.
The reason Harry Reid did away with the filibuster for appellate court judges was so Obama could flip the 2nd Circuit Court which he did and now has a 7-4 Dem lean. It is the most important court because it has jurisdiction over DC.
Not just Trump’s claims. This will impact every POTUS from now going forward.”””
This could impact EVERY USA citizen from here forward...not just POTUS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.