This article is from the source 'washpo' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/sorry-mr-president-congress-needs-your-taxes-legislating-includes-oversight/2020/05/15/9cbd47fc-960c-11ea-82b4-c8db161ff6e5_story.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=wp_homepage
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Sorry, Mr. President, Congress needs your taxes. Legislating includes oversight. | Sorry, Mr. President, Congress needs your taxes. Legislating includes oversight. |
| (32 minutes later) | |
| To justify hiding his tax returns from the House of Representatives, President Trump, his administration and his personal lawyers have repeatedly argued that they are none of Congress’s business: In oral argument before the Supreme Court on Tuesday — for the joint cases Trump v. Mazars and Trump v. Deutsche Bank — Patrick Strawbridge, Trump’s personal attorney, answered a question from Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. by asserting that “the president’s personal papers are not related to anything having to do with the workings of government.” Trump frequently asserts that efforts to review his tax returns and conduct oversight are nothing more than “presidential harassment.” A year ago, in a letter to House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard E. Neal (D-Mass.), Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin wrote that the panel’s request for Trump’s tax records “lacks a legitimate legislative purpose.” | To justify hiding his tax returns from the House of Representatives, President Trump, his administration and his personal lawyers have repeatedly argued that they are none of Congress’s business: In oral argument before the Supreme Court on Tuesday — for the joint cases Trump v. Mazars and Trump v. Deutsche Bank — Patrick Strawbridge, Trump’s personal attorney, answered a question from Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. by asserting that “the president’s personal papers are not related to anything having to do with the workings of government.” Trump frequently asserts that efforts to review his tax returns and conduct oversight are nothing more than “presidential harassment.” A year ago, in a letter to House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard E. Neal (D-Mass.), Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin wrote that the panel’s request for Trump’s tax records “lacks a legitimate legislative purpose.” |
| This is incorrect, and it is based on a recurring fallacy about congressional power. The president’s lawyers maintain that Congress’s power is confined to passing laws, not making sure laws are followed, or exploring whether further legislation is necessary. In reality, both are part of the job description, and the two go hand in hand. | This is incorrect, and it is based on a recurring fallacy about congressional power. The president’s lawyers maintain that Congress’s power is confined to passing laws, not making sure laws are followed, or exploring whether further legislation is necessary. In reality, both are part of the job description, and the two go hand in hand. |
| To start, the House’s demands to see Trump’s tax returns didn’t just come out of thin air — they were made based on existing statutes. Neal sought the president’s returns pursuant to 26 USC §6103(f)(1) and (4)(A), which gives him the authority to subpoena any American’s tax returns as long as it is for a legitimate purpose. In this case, that purpose is determining whether the president is complying with the Constitution and laws or has subjected his office and the nation to damaging conflicts of interest. | To start, the House’s demands to see Trump’s tax returns didn’t just come out of thin air — they were made based on existing statutes. Neal sought the president’s returns pursuant to 26 USC §6103(f)(1) and (4)(A), which gives him the authority to subpoena any American’s tax returns as long as it is for a legitimate purpose. In this case, that purpose is determining whether the president is complying with the Constitution and laws or has subjected his office and the nation to damaging conflicts of interest. |
| More broadly, the Supreme Court has held that although Congress’s oversight power is implicit, rather than explicit, this oversight power flows directly from legislative power itself. As Justice Willis Van Devanter set out in the 1927 case McGrain v. Daugherty, “the power of inquiry — with process to enforce it — is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function.” He went on to explain that during the period that the Constitution was written and adopted, the power of inquiry “was regarded and employed as a necessary and appropriate attribute of the power to legislate,” that it was “treated as inhering in it.” In Watkins v. United States (1957), Chief Justice Earl Warren held “that power is broad. It encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws, as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes.” The court reinforced this idea in Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund (1975). | More broadly, the Supreme Court has held that although Congress’s oversight power is implicit, rather than explicit, this oversight power flows directly from legislative power itself. As Justice Willis Van Devanter set out in the 1927 case McGrain v. Daugherty, “the power of inquiry — with process to enforce it — is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function.” He went on to explain that during the period that the Constitution was written and adopted, the power of inquiry “was regarded and employed as a necessary and appropriate attribute of the power to legislate,” that it was “treated as inhering in it.” In Watkins v. United States (1957), Chief Justice Earl Warren held “that power is broad. It encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws, as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes.” The court reinforced this idea in Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund (1975). |
| How can members of Congress legislate if we cannot first obtain all the empirical evidence needed to draft responsive and effective bills, or to determine whether the measures we pass are being properly upheld, including by the chief executive? The power to do one’s job implies the power to obtain the information necessary to do it well. | How can members of Congress legislate if we cannot first obtain all the empirical evidence needed to draft responsive and effective bills, or to determine whether the measures we pass are being properly upheld, including by the chief executive? The power to do one’s job implies the power to obtain the information necessary to do it well. |
| Congress isn’t just a co-equal branch. We’re first among equals. | Congress isn’t just a co-equal branch. We’re first among equals. |
| It’s true, of course, that all investigation must be in aid of legislative activity and not be undertaken to achieve public exposure or embarrassment for its own sake. But that worry is just projection on Trump’s part, and reflects his desire to blame Congress for doing its job, however much it may displease him. An inquiry into potential presidential corruption or conflicts of interest is always a matter of the most pressing legislative and public concern. Here, the people govern through their representatives; and all of us, even the president of the United States, are equally subject to the law and the Constitution. | It’s true, of course, that all investigation must be in aid of legislative activity and not be undertaken to achieve public exposure or embarrassment for its own sake. But that worry is just projection on Trump’s part, and reflects his desire to blame Congress for doing its job, however much it may displease him. An inquiry into potential presidential corruption or conflicts of interest is always a matter of the most pressing legislative and public concern. Here, the people govern through their representatives; and all of us, even the president of the United States, are equally subject to the law and the Constitution. |
| One of the reasons I want to see Trump’s long-promised tax returns is that so much business activity at his hotels and golf courses (and in other corporate ventures) with foreign governments probably implicates the Constitution’s foreign emoluments clause. Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 bans receipt by the president, “without the Consent of the Congress . . . any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” There have been continuing reports of the president’s business ties with foreign governments, including China, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates. | One of the reasons I want to see Trump’s long-promised tax returns is that so much business activity at his hotels and golf courses (and in other corporate ventures) with foreign governments probably implicates the Constitution’s foreign emoluments clause. Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 bans receipt by the president, “without the Consent of the Congress . . . any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” There have been continuing reports of the president’s business ties with foreign governments, including China, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates. |
| We also know generally that the domestic emoluments clause in Article II has been implicated, because hundreds of thousands of dollars have flowed to Trump properties from various government agencies, including the Secret Service, the State Department and the Defense Department. On Thursday, The Washington Post reported that “the U.S. government has paid at least $970,000 to President Trump’s company since Trump took office.” But we still need additional details about what activity has transpired between foreign governments and Trump’s businesses or administration. | We also know generally that the domestic emoluments clause in Article II has been implicated, because hundreds of thousands of dollars have flowed to Trump properties from various government agencies, including the Secret Service, the State Department and the Defense Department. On Thursday, The Washington Post reported that “the U.S. government has paid at least $970,000 to President Trump’s company since Trump took office.” But we still need additional details about what activity has transpired between foreign governments and Trump’s businesses or administration. |
| Were Congress to find further evidence of violations of the foreign emoluments clause, that might prompt me to introduce legislation to compel presidents to report to Congress the receipt of all foreign government business or personal payments within five days for an immediate up-or-down approval vote. Revelations of large foreign state payoffs might impel Congress to demand a return of specific ill-gotten gains or even to seek impeachment of an unrepentant president, which was an appropriate constitutional remedy for emoluments clause violations explicitly identified by the Founders. (While debating the ratification of the Constitution, Virginia Gov. Edmund Randolph, who became the first attorney general of the United States, noted that if a president were to become corrupted by emoluments from foreign powers, a clear remedy was available: “he may be impeached.”) But how could we take any of these actions without the ability to obtain the basic underlying facts through congressional oversight? | |
| What’s Trump’s idea of ‘America First’? G-7 cash flowing to his golf resort. | What’s Trump’s idea of ‘America First’? G-7 cash flowing to his golf resort. |
| The Supreme Court’s decisions in prior cases, rejecting claims by presidents that they have absolute freedom from legal oversight, such as in United States v. Nixon and Clinton v. Jones, demonstrate which way the justices must go. And if members of the high court have concerns about intervening in a dispute between the people’s representatives and a boundlessly imperious executive, they should defend the expansive fact-finding powers of Congress. As Justice Neil M. Gorsuch asked during Tuesday’s argument, “Why should we not defer to the House’s views about its own legislative purposes?” | The Supreme Court’s decisions in prior cases, rejecting claims by presidents that they have absolute freedom from legal oversight, such as in United States v. Nixon and Clinton v. Jones, demonstrate which way the justices must go. And if members of the high court have concerns about intervening in a dispute between the people’s representatives and a boundlessly imperious executive, they should defend the expansive fact-finding powers of Congress. As Justice Neil M. Gorsuch asked during Tuesday’s argument, “Why should we not defer to the House’s views about its own legislative purposes?” |
| Trump’s lawyers seek to distance the lawmaking powers of Congress, which they concede to be broad, from our oversight powers, which they disparage as suspicious and inherently partisan. They want the court to view these as separate. They’re not. | Trump’s lawyers seek to distance the lawmaking powers of Congress, which they concede to be broad, from our oversight powers, which they disparage as suspicious and inherently partisan. They want the court to view these as separate. They’re not. |
| Twitter: @RepRaskin | Twitter: @RepRaskin |
| Read more from Outlook: | Read more from Outlook: |
| Five myths about Trump's income tax returns | |
| Pete Buttigieg: China wants four more years of Trump | |
| Justin Amash: Dershowitz's view would destroy out constitutional system | |
| Follow our updates on Facebook and Twitter. | Follow our updates on Facebook and Twitter. |