0
   

Tax returns sought as means of extra-judicial punishment/coercion

 
 
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 May, 2019 09:00 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

What does it matter whether she was president? You were moralizing about how we all need to obey the law no matter how unfair it is.

Rosa Parks is an example of civil disobedience, not defiance of 'rule of law.'

Trump and/or others refusing to obey a congressional order to expose Trump's finance's would be civil disobedience.

'Rule of law' is just a rationalization for rejecting civil disobedience as a right of conscience.

maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 May, 2019 09:23 am
@livinglava,
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/57/Rosa_Parks_Booking.jpg

Rosa Parks went to jail, and she was convicted. I would love to see Donald Trump follow her example.

Rosa Parks was not above the law. Donald Trump is above the law.


livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Wed 8 May, 2019 09:30 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/57/Rosa_Parks_Booking.jpg

Rosa Parks went to jail, and she was convicted. I would love to see Donald Trump follow her example.

Rosa Parks was not above the law. Donald Trump is above the law.

I'm getting tired of reading your posts. You just sound like a furious madman looking for anything to say to attack Trump.

Stop being so biased and look objectively at using financial information disclosure as a weapon to threaten/coerce presidents or other officials who don't conform to your political will.

If Trump was above the law, there would be no need to discuss this issue. If there was legitimate grounds for impeachment, he would be impeached. Unfortunately, the current congress is too biased in favor of global socialist economic/trade interests and drugs/prostitution to do anything except desperately seek to oust him and replace him with someone who will once again protect their precious drug imports, abortions, and other exploitative trade.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 May, 2019 09:34 am
@livinglava,
You have the right to ignore me. I am going to respond to your partisan bullshit.

I call partisan bullshit no matter what side it is coming from. I have recently defended Trump, particularly on the weird attacks from the left on the Trump economy.

On this thread, the ideological partisan bullshit is coming from you and Oralloy (it is cute the way Oralloy seems to confuse his own "bullshit" with "facts").

maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 May, 2019 09:37 am
It is a pretty basic point...

The president should follow the law. And, if he doesn't, he should face the consequences just like Rosa Parks did and the rest of us do).

Trump supporters seem to disagree with this basic principle.
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Wed 8 May, 2019 09:43 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

It is a pretty basic point...

The president should follow the law. And, if he doesn't, he should face the consequences just like Rosa Parks did and the rest of us do).

Trump supporters seem to disagree with this basic principle.

The president shouldn't comply with any 'laws' designed to make him more vulnerable to coercion.

The president has the constitutional responsibility to protect the independence of the presidency as an office.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 May, 2019 09:44 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

It is a pretty basic point...

The president should follow the law.


What does the law say that he isn't following? You must have something specific in mind, mind sharing which law you are going on about?
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 May, 2019 09:47 am
@McGentrix,
In this particular issue, he is defying Congressional Subpoenas.

LivingLava states that there are circumstances where the president should break laws. In itself that is an interesting view into the mind of Trump supporters.
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Wed 8 May, 2019 09:51 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

maxdancona wrote:

It is a pretty basic point...

The president should follow the law.


What does the law say that he isn't following? You must have something specific in mind, mind sharing which law you are going on about?

Did you even read the OP before posting in the thread?

He was talking about congress using legal means to force Trump tax return disclosure, and then arguing the Trump would have to obey the law because of 'rule of law.'

It's a ridiculous argument. It would be like the mayor living next door to the sheriff and threatening to get a court order to show the other neighbors the sheriff's mail from his mailbox so that they can look for ways to bully the sheriff using his business connections and interests against him.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 May, 2019 09:55 am
@livinglava,
The president has to follow the law.

- He has to follow the law even if the House is controlled by another party.
- He has to follow the law even if he thinks he is being persecuted.
- He has to follow the law even if he is Rosa Parks (and Rosa Parks did spend time in prison).

You are giving multiple reasons why the president is above the law.

None of them are valid. The president is not above the law.

If Barack Obama had the same attitude that Trump supporters now have... he would still be president.
tsarstepan
 
  2  
Reply Wed 8 May, 2019 10:00 am
@livinglava,
livinglava wrote:

The only reason Trump's tax returns are sought is to use them against him and thus bring him into submission to his opponents.

No. Trump is a criminal tax evader. Trump clearly violates/violated the Emoluments Clause. These are many legal reasons the world needs to see ALL of his tax returns.
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Wed 8 May, 2019 10:04 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

The president has to follow the law.

- He has to follow the law even if the House is controlled by another party.

He has the responsibility to ignore any laws or acts of congress that would undermine the independence of the office in which he is serving.

The president can't comply with congress if congress is in defiance of the constitution.

Quote:
- He has to follow the law even if he thinks he is being persecuted.

Only if the law isn't undermining the constitution. He has to protect and serve the constitution. He would be violating his official duty if he failed to uphold the government against persecutors.

Quote:
- He has to follow the law even if he is Rosa Parks (and Rosa Parks did spend time in prison).

There is nothing relevant about Rosa Parks. Rosa Parks was standing up for what's right, not defending her ability to do her duty. If she had been a security officer on the bus and someone told her to go to the back of the bus and she refused, then her refusal would have been for the sake of defending her security duties.

Quote:
You are giving multiple reasons why the president is above the law.

None of them are valid. The president is not above the law.

You keep twisting and spinning facts to ignore what I've explained clearly over and over; that Trump can't allow congress to undermine the constitution by subjecting the presidency to coercive influence.
tsarstepan
 
  2  
Reply Wed 8 May, 2019 10:19 am
@livinglava,
livinglava wrote:


He has the responsibility to ignore any laws or acts of congress that would undermine the independence of the office in which he is serving.

That literally is the definition of committing a crime.
Quote:
The president can't comply with congress if congress is in defiance of the constitution.

That process as depicted in the constitution is having the US Supreme Court to decree said congressional act or law as unconstitutional. The President LEGALLY and CONSTITUTIONALLY has no right to determine what is and isn't constitutional. That is LITERALLY the job of the US Supreme Court.
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Wed 8 May, 2019 10:53 am
@tsarstepan,
tsarstepan wrote:

That process as depicted in the constitution is having the US Supreme Court to decree said congressional act or law as unconstitutional. The President LEGALLY and CONSTITUTIONALLY has no right to determine what is and isn't constitutional. That is LITERALLY the job of the US Supreme Court.

You may be right, but even if that's the case then the president can't comply with the law until the Supreme Court reaches its finding.

Instead, the president has the responsibility to defy the law until the Supreme Court has a chance to rule and, at that time, his or her defiance could be found to be incorrect.

Still, it could also be possible for the president or congress to continue defying the ruling of the Supreme Court, if he or she was truly convinced that both branches of government were acting in corruption and violation of the constitution.

Consider a historical example:

What if congress had blocked Lincoln from stopping the secession of states during the Civil War, from enacting the emancipation proclamation, etc.? Lincoln could have maintained the war effort against the Confederates and defied the Supreme Court if it ruled against him. He could have continued to defy those other branches of government until a sufficient counter-offensive was used to overthrow him; and at that point the right of secession could have been established along with prohibitions against slave-emancipation, effectively turning the USA into the CSA.

If that had happened, most people would say that Lincoln was right for rejecting attempts by congress and SCOTUS to support secession. They would say that because they believe it is fundamental within the constitution to stop slavery; i.e. not to allow it as a right at the state level. You could argue that until the 13th amendment was ratified, Lincoln had no right to emancipate the slaves by proclamation, but he did so as part of a war effort, which you could maybe also argue was not a legal war, but then if not what would have been the correct procedure for dealing with the rebellion properly?

Whatever the case, it would have been improper for congress to use legal means to expose personal information about Lincoln as a tactic for undermining his independent functioning as president. They would have to find grounds to impeach him and remove him from power. He could still have defied the impeachment ruling if he was convinced they were the product of botched/corrupt process, and even if the SCOTUS disagreed, he could maintain his stance and history would have had to judge his resistance by considering the biases of the other branches.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 May, 2019 01:59 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

In this particular issue, he is defying Congressional Subpoenas.


What law is that though? There is no law that I know of that says he has to submit to Congressional subpoenas.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 May, 2019 02:02 pm
@tsarstepan,
tsarstepan wrote:

No. Trump is a criminal tax evader. Trump clearly violates/violated the Emoluments Clause. These are many legal reasons the world needs to see ALL of his tax returns.


You have proof of that? I am sure a bunch of Dems up on Capital Hill would like to see that proof. You should share it with them.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 8 May, 2019 04:46 pm
@livinglava,
livinglava wrote:
Rosa Parks is an example of civil disobedience, not defiance of 'rule of law.'

That seems to me like a distinction without a difference.


livinglava wrote:
Trump and/or others refusing to obey a congressional order to expose Trump's finance's would be civil disobedience.

Only if he ignores a court order. As long as the courts are still considering the issue there isn't really any defiance of the law.


livinglava wrote:
'Rule of law' is just a rationalization for rejecting civil disobedience as a right of conscience.

Well, the two principles can certainly conflict with each other. I think they are both valid principles however.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 8 May, 2019 04:47 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
On this thread, the ideological partisan bullshit is coming from you and Oralloy (it is cute the way Oralloy seems to confuse his own "bullshit" with "facts").

I defy you to point out a single fact that I am wrong about.

If you are not willing to challenge any of my facts, then it is wrong of you to imply that some of my facts are incorrect.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 8 May, 2019 04:48 pm
@tsarstepan,
tsarstepan wrote:
No. Trump is a criminal tax evader. Trump clearly violates/violated the Emoluments Clause.

That certainly isn't clear to me.


tsarstepan wrote:
These are many legal reasons the world needs to see ALL of his tax returns.

The President has the same right to privacy that everyone else has.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 8 May, 2019 04:49 pm
@tsarstepan,
tsarstepan wrote:
That process as depicted in the constitution is having the US Supreme Court to decree said congressional act or law as unconstitutional. The President LEGALLY and CONSTITUTIONALLY has no right to determine what is and isn't constitutional. That is LITERALLY the job of the US Supreme Court.

Agreed.

So let's see what the courts have to say about the matter.

I'm sure that the Mr. Trump will comply with all rulings by our courts.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 12/13/2024 at 11:57:15