By David French
Monday, April 22, 2019
I believe three things at the same time. First, Donald
Trump should have voluntarily produced his tax returns years ago. Second, the
law Democrats are using to demand production of Trump’s returns — which grants
the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee the right to see the returns
of any American taxpayer — is overbroad and vulnerable to abuse. And third, the
lawsuit Trump has just filed in hopes of repelling that demand is both
frivolous and (to the extent the courts pay it any mind) dangerous to our
constitutional system of checks and balances.
The core problem with Trump’s lawsuit is clear: It defies
Congress’s inherent investigative authority by defining Congress’s “legislative
sphere” so narrowly that it would prohibit Congress from meaningfully
investigating the president. Moreover,
it argues, “‘Oversight’ and ‘transparency,’ in a vacuum, are not legitimate
legislative purposes that can justify subpoenaing a private citizen.”
But wait. Didn’t we just finish a multi-year national
ordeal during which Donald Trump’s defenders consistently argued that
investigation of the executive branch was a legislative function — i.e. that it
was ridiculous for the executive
branch to “investigate itself,” and it was ridiculous
for anyone to believe that the president could obstruct justice if he tried to
impede or supervise that probe, because the investigators worked for him?
Yes, yes we did. So it strains credulity for those same
folks, when Congress launches such an investigation — empowered, in this case,
by a specific statute that grants it the ability to see Trump’s returns and by
an enormous reservoir of inherent authority through its lawmaking and
impeachment powers — to turn around and argue that it’s acting as “law
enforcement,” and law enforcement is exclusively the president’s
responsibility.
Fortunately, the Supreme Court agrees. In Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund,
a private anti-war organization challenged a congressional subpoena aimed at
its bank, claiming that the subpoena violated its First Amendment rights. The
Supreme Court held that the subpoena was “immune to judicial interference”
under the Constitution’s speech-or-debate clause, because the subpoenaing
committee’s actions fell within the “legitimate legislative sphere.”
As the Court noted, the purpose of that clause — which
prevents members of Congress from being “questioned in any other place” about
their “Speech or Debate in either House” — is to “insure that the legislative
function the Constitution allocates to Congress may be performed
independently.” And, make no mistake, the legislative function is not confined
to debating and passing legislation. The legislative function includes
investigation. Here’s the Court in Eastland:
The power to investigate and to do
so through compulsory process plainly falls within that definition. This Court
has often noted that the power to investigate is inherent in the power to make
laws because “[a] legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in
the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is
intended to affect or change.” . . . Issuance of subpoenas such as the one in
question here has long been held to be a legitimate use by Congress of its
power to investigate.
“Where the legislative body does
not itself possess the requisite information — which not infrequently is true —
recourse must be had to others who do possess it. Experience has taught that
mere requests for such information often are unavailing, and also that
information which is volunteered is not always accurate or complete; so some
means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed.” [Internal citations
omitted.]
Moreover, the demand for Trump’s returns clearly pertains
to an area where “legislation could be had.” The private business activities of
American presidents are subject to congressional regulation (within
constitutional limits), and knowledge about those activities is relevant to
congressional decision-making. Impeachment, too, is clearly and unequivocally a
legislative function. Indeed, it’s exclusively
a legislative function.
And while Trump is right to be skeptical of the
Democrats’ motives for demanding his returns (there is more than the whiff of a
fishing expedition to the request), the Supreme Court has made it clear that
“in determining the legitimacy of a congressional act [under the
speech-or-debate clause] we do not look to the motives alleged to have prompted
it.” The clause protects against even an “inquiry” into the “motivation” for
the relevant congressional act.
It’s hard, then, to view Trump’s lawsuit as anything
other than a delaying tactic, an excuse for defying an applicable federal
statute while the case winds through the courts. But delaying tactics should
not so explicitly challenge our proper constitutional order. Congress has the
power — by statute and through the Constitution — to demand Trump’s tax
returns. Courts should promptly reject Trump’s suit, and Trump should produce
his returns. Trump may disagree with the law that grants Congress such broad
authority, but it is the law, and presidents must comply with the law.
No comments:
Post a Comment