N.Y. Senate passes bills on Trump's tax returns and pardon power

[jimbo]

On what grounds? The Supremes don't mess with the states. They only do Federal stuff. So tell me, O Great Constitutional Scholar, what part of the constitution does this violate? These are about New York taxes and New York is a sovereign state. Aren't you supposed to be all about states rights? Staunch conservative that you are. Unless of course it inconveniences your your boy, Trump.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

A Constitutional right. States cannot overrule Constitutional rights.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

There are plenty of threads were you can speculate about impeachment, and plenty of posters who will discuss it with you. I am not speaking of impeachment. I'm stating facts about Congressi0onal oversight and what it is.

I took the liberty of collecting every post you have made in this thread. Here they are...

They're for state's rights if Trump orders them to be for state's rights, and they're against state's rights when they know they will damage Father Trump.

Republicans are so confused these days. Good thing they have Father Trump to tell them what to think.

When did it become improper for a state's Senate to pass a law?

Tax issues? Your tax returns are not protected by privacy. When you submit your tax returns, they are the property of the IRS or the state you submit them to. As a lawyer, you should know this.

I didn't mention the word "impeach" in my post. So I have no idea why you quoted me and talked impeachment. I'm talking about Congressional oversight which absolutely includes the investigation of the Executive Branch.

Like I said, you're for state's rights until Trump tells you not to be.

I'd worry about Trump too if I were you.

I didn't know anyone was confused about what the job of the Executive Branch is. We were talking about Congressional oversight and what it is. Maybe you didn't understand the posts?

The only "fact" I see regarding congressional oversight is when you mentioned that it "includes the investigation of the Executive Branch." That, right there, is the extent to which it has been discussed by you.

The New York law is specifically targeting Trump. I don't think this is even a debatable point and it is, in fact, the weaponization of the legislative process. This is very dangerous ground we're standing on, here.

 

[tres borrachos]

I took the liberty of collecting every post you have made in this thread. Here they are...













The only "fact" I see regarding congressional oversight is when you mentioned that it "includes the investigation of the Executive Branch." That, right there, is the extent to which it has been discussed by you.

The New York law is specifically targeting Trump. I don't think this is even a debatable point and it is, in fact, the weaponization of the legislative process. This is very dangerous ground we're standing on, here.

Yes and going after political enemies via an investigation is something that Trump and the Republicans never do and never have done. Is that about right, Jack?

 

[jimbo]

Ever hear of the Supremacy Clause?


Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia

Or the tenth?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[jimbo]

Tres, you have to understand that in Turtleland, if you want to punish one person, that means you want to punish literally every single person in the country.

If you want and do punish 1 person without a legal reason, that means you can punish literally all persons in the country on the same whim.

 

[Fishking]

I have a lot, actually.

But at least I'm not chewing my nails in fear because of what the state of NY may uncover about Trump. That's you.

Yeah...because they are totally going to uncover something that the IRS and Mueller missed. The delusion runs deep with some.

 

[jimbo]

Because a bunch of low intellect imbeciles elected a known liar and dishonest piece of crap as president and there is no other way to ascertain if he is compromised by our adversaries or he is only a crook.

That's your legal reason?

You don't get to violate a person's rights to go fishing.

 

[MTAtech]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

A Constitutional right. States cannot overrule Constitutional rights.

See: https://www.debatepolitics.com/brea...ess-says-no-legitimate-40.html#post1070064437
Your argument has been previously dismissed as frivolous.

The Supreme Court has ruled that tax returns have no 4th Amendment protection.

United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435, 443–44 (1976) – the Supreme Court reiterated that the “Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third party.”

Taliaferro v. Freeman, 595 F.App’x 961, 962-63 (11th Cir. 2014) – the 11th Circuit held that the taxpayer’s contention that IRS levies violate the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures was “simply without merit” and did not even warrant discussion and ordered sanctions against the taxpayer up to and including double the government’s costs.

O’Brien v. Green, 114 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2014-5613 (E.D. Va. 2014) – the court rejected O’Brien’s Fourth Amendment arguments and characterized them as frivolous.

Nevius v. Tomlinson, 113 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2014-1872 (W.D. Miss. 2014) – Nevius argued that IRS summons issued without probable cause of warrant violated the Fourth Amendment. The court rejected this argument, stating “IRS need not meet any standard of probable cause to obtain enforcement of [a] summons.”

Lewis v. United States, 109 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2012-1756 (E.D. Ca. 2012) – the court rejected Lewis’s argument that summonses sent to third parties violated the Fourth Amendment, holding that “summonses issued by the IRS seeking documents in the possession of third-parties do not implicate petitioner's rights under the Fourth Amendment.”

United States v. Lund, 108 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2011-7513 (D. Or. 2011) – Lund argued that IRS summons violated the Fourth Amendment. The Court rejected this argument, stating that a summons “is not a per se violation of the Fourth Amendment.”

 

[jimbo]

I have a lot, actually.

But at least I'm not chewing my nails in fear because of what the state of NY may uncover about Trump. That's you.

If you have a lot, bring it on.

This is not about what NY may uncover. This is about NY releasing private papers to Congress.

 

[Anthony60]

The thing that is extremely troubling to me is that the NY Democrats are now using their legislative power as a weapon against one individual, for political reasons. Laws are meant to be applied to all, and to set standards, over time. Is there a problem in NY State where the citizens are pushing for a change in the laws because they desire less privacy with their tax returns? Must be a real big movement for things to be changed this quickly.

Or, is this is a knee jerk political attack on one individual (though it could effect many others) by a State legislature to advance the political goals or their party? That answer is obvious. They are literally changing State law in order to attack an individual.

 

[ocean515]

I took the liberty of collecting every post you have made in this thread. Here they are...













The only "fact" I see regarding congressional oversight is when you mentioned that it "includes the investigation of the Executive Branch." That, right there, is the extent to which it has been discussed by you.

The New York law is specifically targeting Trump. I don't think this is even a debatable point and it is, in fact, the weaponization of the legislative process. This is very dangerous ground we're standing on, here.

What is most alarming in all this chaos the left is manufacturing, is the complete indifference to the ramifications and precedents they are establishing by their supporters.

These actions are fully within what could be easily argued, is that of a totalitarian State, where individual rights are no longer recognized.

The desire to erase the founding principles of this Nation should be a wake up call to every citizen in this Country who values what our forefathers died to secure.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

Yes and going after political enemies via an investigation is something that Trump and the Republicans never do and never have done. Is that about right, Jack?

The purpose of an investigation is to gather facts and evidence and depending upon where the facts and evidence lead, charges may be brought. At this point it becomes a matter for the courts to decide.

Weaponizing the legislative process strips away the rights of the individual, undermines Judicial authority, and at a point, the presumption of innocence.

It's dangerous ground which has ramifications far beyond getting a peak at Trump's tax returns.

 

[Ikari]

The problem is Trump may have received tax breaks from who???????

Corrupt Democrats - right????

Sent from my Lenovo YT3-850F using Tapatalk

And corrupt Republicans. I mean, both sides bitch and moan and pretend to be different, but in the end they act nearly identically.

But that's cool. I say throw the lot out and let's start over fresh.

 

[TurtleDude]

The real question is why should a state be prohibited from volunteering tax information, which has no 4th Amendment protection, from sharing with federal law enforcement or Congressional investigations? It's like you would take John Gotti's side in keeping his activities hidden, so as to protect his criminal enterprise.

That is a silly analogy.

 

[apdst]

What are you talking about? It's a law that applies to everyone in New York State that files taxes.

Suuuuuure it does...lol!

 

[TurtleDude]

The purpose of an investigation is to gather facts and evidence and depending upon where the facts and evidence lead, charges may be brought. At this point it becomes a matter for the courts to decide.

Weaponizing the legislative process strips away the rights of the individual, undermines Judicial authority, and at a point, the presumption of innocence.

It's dangerous ground which has ramifications far beyond getting a peak at Trump's tax returns.

The people who cannot get over the 2016 election results don't care or think about the long term damage their petulant attempts to undo the election are going to cause

 

[TurtleDude]

Because a bunch of low intellect imbeciles elected a known liar and dishonest piece of crap as president and there is no other way to ascertain if he is compromised by our adversaries or he is only a crook.

I love this level of hysteria from those who are still upset that their beloved Hillary wasn't able to steal the election, despite the machinations of her minions. I love your attitude that the millions of people who voted for Trump are all "low intellect imbeciles". You should scream that constantly in 2020-it will only help Trump win again because many of us who voted for Trump are far far smarter than those who pretend every or most Trump voter is an "imbecile"

 

[apdst]

Yes and going after political enemies via an investigation is something that Trump and the Republicans never do and never have done. Is that about right, Jack?

This has nothing to do with legitimately investigating anything. This law has one purpose: to release President Trump's tax returns to the media, so they can use them to beat up the president.

New York has an internal revenue agency. That's the job of that agency to discover any illegal activity. The best part, is no one has to even order them to do it. They can just do it and I'm sure they already have. The fact that we haven't heard anything from them is because they came up empty handed.

 

[jonny5]

I didn't know anyone was confused about what the job of the Executive Branch is. We were talking about Congressional oversight and what it is. Maybe you didn't understand the posts?

Why do I bother? Every discussion with you ends up the same way.

 

[OldFatGuy]

There are plenty of threads were you can speculate about impeachment, and plenty of posters who will discuss it with you. I am not speaking of impeachment. I'm stating facts about Congressi0onal oversight and what it is.

Congressional oversight has usually been relegated toward behavior regarding money issue and government behavior, therefore any discussion of congressional oversight cannot exclude the impeachment process, a behavioral issue.

 

[beefheart]

Once again, the conservatives are all for states rights......until they aren't...

 

[OldFatGuy]

Where and how exactly does the Justice convict a sitting president?

You might want to look into the indictment of Andy Jackson for murder during his second week in office, thwarted because the court rejected the indictment as a state issue, and dueling had not yet been outlawed in Tennessee. As well, the indictment of Andrew Johnson as a traitor (for attempting to carry out Lincoln's reconstruction policies), the basis for his failed impeachment.

While improbable, there is no protection, constitutionally, legislatively or by case law, for a sitting president from indictment and conviction of a true crime. Nixon was facing an indictment for ordering the Watergate burglary when he resigned, knowing he would be convicted and subsequently impeached.

 

[Taylor]

Once again, the conservatives are all for states rights......until they aren't...

Once again, Democrats prove themselves to be the party that no longer cares about civil liberties.

 

[gdgyva]

Once again, the conservatives are all for states rights......until they aren't...

and once again, liberals care NOTHING for states rights until it suits THEIR needs

partisan politics at its finest....

 

[prometeus]

That's your legal reason?

You don't get to violate a person's rights to go fishing.

There is no fishing at all.