Comments by "MacAdvisor" (@MacAdvisor) on "President Trump Loses the Tax Return Battle | LegalEagle’s Law Review" video.

  1. Objection 1: I don't believe a law requiring Presidential candidates to reveal their income tax forms would be Constitutional as it adds requirements to those listed in the Constitution at Article II, Section 1, Part 5, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." Nowhere does the Constitution allow to add additional requirements or mention tax returns. I think the only way to require the release would be to amend the Constitution and doing so is not worth the benefit. If people really want the returns, they can punish the candidate by not voting him into office. Objection 2: I believe Congress won an outright victory in Trump v. Deutsche Bank. There is much precedent about requiring Presidents to comply with subpoenas in civil or criminal cases, but almost nothing (in fact, I would say nothing) about complying with Congressional subpoenas as, until Trump, Congress and the President have always worked things out between themselves and not involved the courts. The Supremes had to make law and did a very good job, putting forth very reasonable standards Congress will meet in the case. Yes, the Congress will likely not the returns before the session ends, but I firmly believe the next session of Congress will again ask for them and the returns will be submitted. The real objection (question) I would like to ask is why these kinds of cases take so friggin' long? I think US courts are wildly lazy and the Supreme Court here even more so. Nine people, with at least two clerks each, and a couple of secretaries, handle about 100 to 150 cases out of the some 7,000 cases appealed to it each year. Is there a law firm anywhere in the US with nine partners and 18 associates that only handles 150 cases a year that isn't in or headed to bankruptcy? With two people helping me with research and proof reading, I could write one of these opinions a week without breathing hard or staying up late. For example, on August 28, 2019, the Parliament of the United Kingdom was ordered to be prorogued by Queen Elizabeth II upon the advice of the prime minister, Boris Johnson. By September 24th of the same year, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, their equivalent to our Supreme Court, rendered a decision against the prorogation. The case was heard in the court of the first instance, appealed, and ruled on by the Supreme Court in less than TWO MONTHS. Trump v. Deutsche Bank took more than a year. In the recent case on employment rights for LGBTQ people, TWO of the plaintiffs died the case took so long. The court managed to override the trial court on a death penalty case in a week ignoring the harm to the appellant (death), but allowed MONTHS if not YEARS to go by in these things. Why? Why does the courts take SOOOOOO long? And don't tell me you lawyers need time to prepare and respond to briefs. I work for lawyers, if you guys don't wait until the last minute to do something, you wait to the last second. Anything longer than a week is wasted. The whole process needs to be sped up.
    1