If our elected Senators and House of Representatives are serious about defending the Constitution and working for the common good of their constituents, they need to enforce the Emoluments Clause. That clause is there to prevent "absolute power". It is a provision in the Constitution, meant to protect American citizens from elected officials financial violations and abuses of the Constitution. Why should Presidents, who have taken a sacred sworn oath of office to defend and protect America, be less accountable to the taxpayers who pay his wages? Why should Pres. Trump be allowed to avoid the responsibility of being accountable for unethical, questionable or possibly dishonest financial enrichments or benefits, from corporate interests due to his Presidential position of power? Donald Trump is not the CEO, the Pope, the Czar, the Emir or the King of the United States of America. "Yes, Mr. President, you are an American citizen and YOU ARE AN EMPLOYEE OF THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS."
However, if there is no law requiring Presidential candidates/elected Presidents to openly submit/disclose their tax returns for public inspection, it leaves the gate wide open for any President to ignore, avoid or refuse voluntary compliance. There also remains another side to the controversy, one of enforcement.
It will not matter, if a million passionately concerned taxpayers hold protests, in every city in America, if our elected officials sitting in the Senate and House of Representatives in Washington, D. C. refuse to pass/enforce a law of Presidential Personal Income Tax Disclosure and Accountability. If the ignored American taxpayers are trying to keep the highest office in the land honest and our Senators and State Representatives do not share that viewpoint or refuse to take any legal measures/remedies, then it is simply a futile and ineffectual exercise of wasted energy. It merely proves that our elected officials could care less about what regular citizens and taxpayers think or demand from government. The Constitution becomes a wasted piece of antiquated papyrus, without consequence in a modern cyber world.
In the end, it is a sacred sworn oath of duty, to the citizens of America, that our elected men and women in the legislature, uphold the Emoluments Clause to reflect an honest and modern-day law of Presidential accountability to the people of America. If that Emoluments Clause needs a modern day updating or amending, after being ratified in the late 1700's, then it is the responsibility of Congress to do it.
Under the Constitution of the United States of America:
Congress has a duty to make sure President Trump isn’t selling out the United States. These legislators are in more active dereliction of that duty than most.
By Conor Friedersdorf
Feb. 15, 2017
More than 800,000 Americans have signed a petition demanding the release of Donald Trump’s tax returns. Polls show that a majority of the country wants to see the documents.
And this week, the movement got a new champion and 23 new targets for ire.
The champion is Representative Bill Pascrell, who sits on the Ways and Means Committee. He found that “a rarely invoked 1924 law could be used to examine President Donald Trump's tax returns for possible conflicts of interest and Constitutional violations,” USA Today.
“The 1924 law gives congressional committees that set tax policy the power to examine tax returns. It was used in 1974 when Congress looked at President Richard Nixon's returns, and in 2014 when the Ways and Means Committee released confidential tax information as part of its investigation into the Internal Revenue Service's handling of applications for nonprofit status.”
This prompted Democrats on the committee to introduce an amendment Tuesday that would’ve triggered a request for the tax returns to the Treasury Department. “Unless this amendment is adopted, we will never see the president's tax returns while he's in office,” Representative Sander Levin told his Republican colleagues.
Last year, after some of Trump's worrying foreign conflicts were exposed, I argued that Congress cannot fulfill its constitutional duty to check and balance the next president, or provide adequate oversight of the federal agencies he presides over, without a full, accurate understanding of his business holdings and debts. I urged Americans to tell their representatives that they favor an exhaustive inquiry into Trump’s finances to determine exactly where his interests and ours diverge.
The amendment was rejected on a party-line vote by these 23 Republicans (the ones with asterisks next to their names represent relatively competitive districts; the others are thought to be in “safe seats” for the GOP, and only vulnerable in primaries):
Kevin Brady of Texas
Sam Johnson of Texas
*********DEVIN NUNES OF CALIFORNIA*********
Pat Tiberi of Ohio
Dave Reichert of Washington
Peter Roskam of Illinois
Vern Buchanan of Florida
Adrian Smith of Nebraska
Lynn Jenkins of Kansas
Erik Paulsen of Minnesota
Kenny Marchant of Texas
Diane Black of Tennesee
Tom reed of New York
Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania
Jim Renacci of Ohio
Pat Meehan of Pennsylvania
Kristi Noem of South Dakota
George Holding of North Carolina
Jason Smith of Missouri
Tom Rice of South Carolina
David Schweikert of Arizona
Jackie Walorski of Indiana
Carlos Curbelo of Florida
The vote could come back to haunt these legislators if the tax returns eventually come to light and reveal something that American voters feel they should’ve known, especially given the weak rationale offered by Republicans in defense of the vote.
No comments:
Post a Comment