No, I do.
I’ve tried very hard to explain it to you. I apologize if I have failed.
DougBH
42
No. Not accepted. As you said, the article explains it in detail. I’m through.
Nothing says “I have the better argument” than flouncing out in a huff.
What do you think the article has “explained”?
From his article
“Although these powers are not directly stated in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has ruled on multiple occasions that they are implicit as an essential legislative power held by Congress.“
I’m not asking you to rephrase the article - I’m asking you to tell me how that article supports your point - and, for that matter, what your point is.
I read the article. I agree with it. So what?
I see that you deleted the post that I was responding to before I posted my response.
Aren’t you glad I didn’t quote you?
DougBH
48
Not really.
But you do realize that there was nothing in the post that you dissected that was in any way in disagreement with the article you say you agree with?
DougBH
50
Look, youre the one who took this down a winding path more than me. You explain your point.
Mine was made clear from the beginning…the argument is about the authority of the legislature as granted under Article I, not about the meaning of some statute. The courts will decide the issue…enforce it or not.
It was the courts that decided Nixon had to hand over the tapes and, belatedly, that Congress had authority to subpoena documents from the Holder DOJ.
They already did. More than once.
Nope. I still don’t know what you’re talking about.
Nope. But at least you’re trying.
The court doesn’t have the power to “enforce” anything.
And again - that’s a separation of powers issue - and has nothing to do with what we’re discussing.
Late to the party, not sure if this has already been said…
The Sergeant at Arms does have arrest powers if the rules of the senate (contempt) have been broken. This has been done in the past.
The Congress attempting to subpoena the private tax records of anyone for political purposes unconnected with any real attempt at oversite has constitutional implications. The courts will sort it out. Why do you hate the Constitution and the Courts?
Please point to where this is unconstitutional. Thank you
Did I say it was? I said there were Constitutional implications. You have heard of the right to be secure in one’s papers haven’t you? The law allows the Congress to subpoena any tax records it chooses; however, the Congress’ does have limits. Courts have said that the Congress’ requests must have something to do with legitimate oversight. What possible “oversight” could the Congress be conducting by getting the Tax records of the President from a time before he was President? The question will be whether or not this request is a part of any “legitimate oversight” , and a court will decide if it is, or if it’s nothing more than political gamesmanship.
You asked me why hated the constitution and the colors… So you implied what they are doing is unconstitutional and i hate America… Nice
and you asked the previous poster why he hated the law… glass house… stone.
I implied nothing, you inferred. Your inference is your problem.
Again show me where this is unconstitutional. If not we are done here
Specious argument. They don’t want the information for legislative purposes, they want it for oversight purposes which is one hundred percent within their purview.
Again, when did I say it was? There are Constitutional implications with the law involving the 4th Amendment and the limits of Congressional/Executive powers. Given the 4th Amendment is the law too broad? Given the courts previous rulings stating there must be some legitimate oversight involved does this request fit within those limits? The Congress can ask for whatever it wants, whether or not the request must be complied with is another question entirely.
