By David French
Friday, April 05, 2019
Democrats and many other Trump opponents are thrilled
that House Ways and Means Committee chairman Richard Neal has “formally
requested” six years of Donald Trump’s tax returns. At last, they argue, Trump
will be forced to be transparent. At last we’ll see the financial information
that he’s so diligently sought to hide ever since he launched his race for the
White House.
Isn’t this good news? Shouldn’t the nation’s chief
executive be transparent about his income and business dealings? Perhaps. But
“should” is a much different than “must,” and the lawyer and civil libertarian
in me immediately wondered about the legal basis for the Democrats’ request.
After all, Trump is still an American citizen and entitled to a degree of
privacy, and there is no law requiring presidents to release their tax returns.
So, on what grounds did the Democrats demand to see his taxes?
Well, it turns out that federal privacy laws contain a
rather wide loophole. Congress, which granted taxpayers relatively strong
protections from disclosure to other entities, left for itself a nice little
out: On mere “written request” from the chairman of House Ways and Means
Committee, the Senate Finance Committee, or the Joint Committee on Taxation,
the secretary of the Treasury “shall furnish” the requesting committee “with
any return or return information specified in such request.”
That’s right. All they have to do is ask. They can have
your return, my return, or any political enemy’s return. But don’t worry, the
law states that if the return or return information might identify the
taxpayer, then it can be provided only when the committee is in “closed
executive session.” And we all know that Congress never leaks, and would never dare
use private information to launch ruinous politically motivated investigations.
After all, there’s nothing but good public servants up on Capitol Hill, right?
As the saying goes, if this is the law, then the law is
an a**.
One of the many startling aspects of the Trump era is the
extent to which intense political combat has illuminated the sheer number of
ridiculous rules and statutes governing this country — including rules and
statutes that grant public officials truly vast amounts of discretion. For
decades, the federal government has vacuumed up an immense amount of power,
doled it out among the various branches of government, and then turned to the
American people and said, “Trust us.”
While the current controversy involves Congress’s
reservation of a right to take a peek at your life, many others involve its
abdication of power to the president. Consider these recent examples . . .
Why is the president able to unilaterally raise tariff
rates and essentially tax the American people without congressional approval?
After all, Article I Section 8 of the Constitution explicitly grants Congress
the power to “regulate Commerce with foreign nations.” Well, as a Vox piece by Tara Golshan nicely
explains, Congress has for decades relinquished authority to set tariff rates
to the president, using multiple different justifications. Laws such as the
Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, the Trade Act of 1974, and the Trade
Expansion Act of 1962 collectively grant the president enormous discretion to
act on his own.
Why was the president able to unilaterally ban immigrants
from multiple majority-Muslim countries? Because Congress gave the president
the power to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as
immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions
he may deem to be appropriate” whenever he finds their entry “detrimental to
the interests of the United States.”
Relatedly, while there may exist statutes that regulate
how a president uses his emergency powers, the National Emergencies Act
essentially leaves the definition of an emergency to the president’s
discretion. How does he define an emergency? He knows it when he sees it.
And don’t get me started on the bipartisan abdication of
congressional authority to declare war. When Trump struck the Assad regime
without congressional authorization, he was walking a trail blazed by many
presidents before him.
The judiciary shouldn’t be given a pass on all of this,
either. One of the prime reasons presidential contests have become so
contentious is the Supreme Court’s repeated willingness to improperly interfere
in the democratic process, and gather for itself immense power well beyond
the adjudication of enumerated
constitutional rights and the coherent interpretation of specific
constitutional provisions.
The president not only controls a bloated executive
branch, he appoints the members of the excessively powerful judicial branch.
And now members of that branch have invented a new kind of power grab: the
nationwide injunction, in which the reach of a mere federal trial-court judge
can extend beyond the parties before him to the entire nation.
When people ask me, how the Trump era is adjusting my
political views, my answer is simple: It’s making me more libertarian. It’s
making me more concerned about the fate of the Constitution. I trust the
government less, I’m more appalled at its sweeping assumptions of power, and I
see more clearly what happens when its leaders — possessed with unwavering
self-righteousness — believe that the ends justify the means.
Now the Democratic war against Donald Trump has exposed
yet another bad law. Congress can investigate your finances — no matter who you
are — for any reason or no reason at all. The fact that Trump is the man
currently under the microscope should in no way lessen our objection to such an
atrocious policy. Bad laws don’t become good just because they’re used to
target people you happen to dislike.
No comments:
Post a Comment