Constitutional terms, do they have meaning, do they have weight?

bongsaway said:

And the president 'shall' turn over his tax returns, which he hasn't. So do they have meaning?

Impeachment is not a criminal trial, it's not even a trial but the right wants it to be a trial so they can make the complaints you are making.

Click to expand...

Where in the Constitution does it require the President to turn over his tax return?

Any statute requiring it would raise serious separation of powers issues.

The courts have long overstepped their role in these disputes. If Congress wants something from the Executive Branch, and they refuse to give it, the Court should deem it as a non-Judicable dispute between the branches which the Legislative and Executive branches have the tools to resolve without the courts.

Marcus1124 said:

Where in the Constitution does it require the President to turn over his tax return?

Any statute requiring it would raise serious separation of powers issues.

The courts have long overstepped their role in these disputes. If Congress wants something from the Executive Branch, and they refuse to give it, the Court should deem it as a non-Judicable dispute between the branches which the Legislative and Executive branches have the tools to resolve without the courts.

Click to expand...

The Constitution isn't the only law in the land.

Marcus1124 said:

Where in the Constitution does it require the President to turn over his tax return?

Any statute requiring it would raise serious separation of powers issues.

The courts have long overstepped their role in these disputes. If Congress wants something from the Executive Branch, and they refuse to give it, the Court should deem it as a non-Judicable dispute between the branches which the Legislative and Executive branches have the tools to resolve without the courts.

Click to expand...

All we heard during the impeachment inquiry and the senate trial was the dems should have taken it through the courts. Now they shouldn't go through the courts. Which is it or does it depend on which outcome might favor the donald?

Don't you want to know if he owes saudi arabia and or russia millions? I do. Trump is a con man, of course he's cheated on his taxes, hell he cheats at golf. Precedent, remember that word? Another kicked around by the right during the impeachment. Trump has broken all kinds of precedents and the right doesn't care. Yeah, I do want to know if my president is a crook.

Marcus1124 said:

Where in the Constitution does it require the President to turn over his tax return?

Any statute requiring it would raise serious separation of powers issues.

The courts have long overstepped their role in these disputes. If Congress wants something from the Executive Branch, and they refuse to give it, the Court should deem it as a non-Judicable dispute between the branches which the Legislative and Executive branches have the tools to resolve without the courts.

Click to expand...

Not doing it and making up excuses for not doing raises credibility questions.

bongsaway said:

All we heard during the impeachment inquiry and the senate trial was the dems should have taken it through the courts. Now they shouldn't go through the courts. Which is it or does it depend on which outcome might favor the donald?

Don't you want to know if he owes saudi arabia and or russia millions? I do. Trump is a con man, of course he's cheated on his taxes, hell he cheats at golf. Precedent, remember that word? Another kicked around by the right during the impeachment. Trump has broken all kinds of precedents and the right doesn't care. Yeah, I do want to know if my president is a crook.

Click to expand...

There is no doubt, your president is a crook, and I hope he goes to jail for it.

Rich2018 said:

The Constitution isn't the only law in the land.

Click to expand...

But it is the Supreme Law of the Land, which means that if a statute runs afoul of its dictates and separation of powers, it is void.

bongsaway said:

All we heard during the impeachment inquiry and the senate trial was the dems should have taken it through the courts. Now they shouldn't go through the courts. Which is it or does it depend on which outcome might favor the donald?

Don't you want to know if he owes saudi arabia and or russia millions? I do. Trump is a con man, of course he's cheated on his taxes, hell he cheats at golf. Precedent, remember that word? Another kicked around by the right during the impeachment. Trump has broken all kinds of precedents and the right doesn't care. Yeah, I do want to know if my president is a crook.

Click to expand...

Who was saying that? Nobody. In fact, most conservatives have long held the view that independent or special counsels that operate outside the authority of the President (in whom is vested the complete power of the Executive branch) as violating basic Constitutional arguments, and that what had nobody in the Executive branch has any business conducting an impeachment inquiry of the President.

If the Congress wants to investigate, fine, if they want to impeach for failure to cooperate, fine, but what they do NOT have the right to do is insist upon unfettered power for an independent functionary within the Executive branch to do that work for them.

The courts should stay out of political disagreements between the other two branches. If the Executive refuses to turn over documents, or make officials available for testimony, the House or Senate has constitutional powers to retaliate, and ultimately to punish if it is seen as hampering a legitimate constitutional function of the Congress, and the people should be the ones to determine if Congress is overreaching or the President is.

As for Trump breaking all sorts of precedents, so did Obama. In fact he was slapped back by UNANIMOUS court rulings on a historically shocking frequency. For every single personal criticism and violation of precedent you can find against Donald Trump, I can point to still revered prominent Democrats who did the same, or worse. Furthermore, if ever there were a president who was elected for the very purpose NOT conducting business as usual, it was Donald Trump.

And Trump's actual POLICIES (despite his often obsequious rhetoric) have been much tougher on Russia than Obama's (the policies that Hillary implemented as his Secretary of State).

The whole Russia thing was simply part of the sad mental breakdown of the people who smugly insisted that it was simply not possible for Trump to get elected coping with the fact that they were just wrong. Rather than accept their own failure to understand the electorate, they cast about desperate to find some exogenous reason to explain away Trump's victory. In 100 years, it will likely be in psychology texts as a case study in denial and cognitive dissonance.

danielpalos said:

Not doing it and making up excuses for not doing raises credibility questions.

Click to expand...

Really? So the majority of Presidents in our history had credibility questions?

The people who decide this are the voters, and they apparently disagreed with you.

Your problem is that you think the American people SHOULD care, but they do not agree with you. You remind me somewhat of an exchange in the move the "American President" where the President's poll numbers were dropping because of his relationship with a lobbyist, he declared that it was his private life and not any of the American people's business, to which his Chief of Staff told him "with all due respect Mr. President, the American people have a funny habit of deciding for themselves what is or is not their business".

Do you believe that everyone running for public office should release their tax returns? What about all their personal records (medical, school, etc.). Shouldn't we know if Barack Obama got into any of the schools he did based on affirmative action rather than merit. Shouldn't all of Joe Biden's official documents from his decades in the Senate be made available to the American people? How about medical records. Shouldn't we have proof that Joe Biden is not suffering from the onset of dementia?

Marcus1124 said:

Really? So the majority of Presidents in our history had credibility questions?

The people who decide this are the voters, and they apparently disagreed with you.

Your problem is that you think the American people SHOULD care, but they do not agree with you. You remind me somewhat of an exchange in the move the "American President" where the President's poll numbers were dropping because of his relationship with a lobbyist, he declared that it was his private life and not any of the American people's business, to which his Chief of Staff told him "with all due respect Mr. President, the American people have a funny habit of deciding for themselves what is or is not their business".

Do you believe that everyone running for public office should release their tax returns? What about all their personal records (medical, school, etc.). Shouldn't we know if Barack Obama got into any of the schools he did based on affirmative action rather than merit. Shouldn't all of Joe Biden's official documents from his decades in the Senate be made available to the American people? How about medical records. Shouldn't we have proof that Joe Biden is not suffering from the onset of dementia?

Click to expand...

How disingenuous of you (like most right wingers); do you also like to use numbers to lie with statistics?

Since the early 1970s, however, most presidents and some vice presidents have chosen to release their returns publicly. In the hope of making this information more widely available, Tax Analysts has been collecting and archiving tax returns filed by American presidents, vice presidents, and candidates for over 20 years.--https://www.taxnotes.com/presidential-tax-returns

Click to expand...

Marcus1124 said:

But it is the Supreme Law of the Land, which means that if a statute runs afoul of its dictates and separation of powers, it is void.

Click to expand...

If the Supreme Court deems it so


The point is there are thousands of laws that do not breach the Constitution.

Rich2018 said:

If the Supreme Court deems it so


The point is there are thousands of laws that do not breach the Constitution.

Click to expand...

And there are many that openly violate the Constitution, and they are illegitimate. The most egregious example currently is the USA Patriot Act, which our elected representatives renew every time it comes up.

The domestic enemies of the USC are far more virulent than any foreign enemy.

Thoreau72 said:

And there are many that openly violate the Constitution, and they are illegitimate.

Click to expand...

Could define "many" in this context ?

The most egregious example currently is the USA Patriot Act, which our elected representatives renew every time it comes up.

Click to expand...

True it does violate the Constitution in many way but will take a Democratic majority in both houses to repeal it

The domestic enemies of the USC are far more virulent than any foreign enemy.

Click to expand...

And mostly there belong to the GOP.

Rich2018 said:

Could define "many" in this context ?




True it does violate the Constitution in many way but will take a Democratic majority in both houses to repeal it



And mostly there belong to the GOP.

Click to expand...

The patriot act was passed by a very bipartisan majority. In fact the only man in the Senate to vote against it was the Dem Russ Feingold, a Jew.

Thoreau72 said:

The patriot act was passed by a very bipartisan majority. In fact the only man in the Senate to vote against it was the Dem Russ Feingold, a Jew.

Click to expand...

And seemingly many if not most senators had not even read the act.


You didn't answer the question though:

Could define "many" in this context ?


And you're forgetting that some parts of the act have expired already.

Rich2018 said:

And seemingly many if not most senators had not even read the act.


You didn't answer the question though:

Could define "many" in this context ?


And you're forgetting that some parts of the act have expired already.

Click to expand...

The Military Commissions Act and the associated NDAA amendments on an annual basis nullify Habeas Corpus.

What parts of PA have expired?

Some on the left are willing to argue that our alleged wars on the abstractions of crime, drugs, and terror are extra-Constitutional since we have no general warfare clause in our federal Constitution.

danielpalos said:

Some on the left are willing to argue that our alleged wars on the abstractions of crime, drugs, and terror are extra-Constitutional since we have no general warfare clause in our federal Constitution.

Click to expand...

I'm independent/libertarian and I know that the various wars ARE extra-Constitutional because they are absurd and brought under some degree of fraud.

Thoreau72 said:

I'm independent/libertarian and I know that the various wars ARE extra-Constitutional because they are absurd and brought under some degree of fraud.

Click to expand...

Yet, the right wing tries to criminalize being Poor even though our welfare clause is General.

Thoreau72 said:

The Military Commissions Act and the associated NDAA amendments on an annual basis nullify Habeas Corpus.

What parts of PA have expired?

Click to expand...

"Following a lack of Congressional approval, parts of the Patriot Act expired on June 1, 2015. With passing the USA Freedom Act on June 2, 2015, the expired parts were restored and renewed through 2019. However, Section 215 of the law was amended to stop the National Security Agency (NSA) from continuing its mass phone data collection program. Instead, phone companies will retain the data and the NSA can obtain information about targeted individuals with permission from a federal court.

In November 2019, the renewal of the Patriot Act was included in the stop-gap legislation. The expired provisions required renewal by March 15, 2020. The Senate passed a 77-day extension in March 2020, but the House of Representatives did not pass the legislation before departing for recess on March 27, 2020...."



Patriot Act - Wikipedia