Are you sure you want to delete this post?
johnnycee Wrote: Are you saying that it applies retroactively , then why can't they compel him to give up his other returns as he has only been a public servant for what 50 days, and those returns are also when he was a private citizen, something is not right with type of logic.
It's not logic; it's the law.
A President is a public figure and the courts have consistently ruled that privacy laws are far more lax when it comes to public figures. Courts have consistently ruled throughout our nations history that public figures, especially figures like Congresspeople, Senators, The Cabinet, top Executive Branch employees, and yes - even the President - don't have the same privacy rights as common citizens.
The Courts have also consistently ruled that the press has every right to inform the citizenry about our public figures. Presidents from both political parties have unsuccessfully attempted to curtail that right, but the courts have sided with the press nearly 100 percent of the time.
If the press didn't have that right then we would have never learned about the Watergate break in or the torture at Abu Ghraib prison. We would have never found out that Nixon bombed Cambodia or that Reagan secretly sold illegal arms to Iran and funneled the money they received to Contra rebels fighting in Nicaragua.
The press absolutely has the Constitutional right to inform the public on what their President is doing regardless if you think it's important or not.
johnnycee Wrote: On another note, I am lucky I understood Criminal Law and some Civil law as it pertained to my job in law enforcement, Constitutional Law, no way can I begin to understand it, and I have copies of the Fed. Papers, The Constitution, The Jefferson Letters along with Madison's letter's, and I still have difficulty reading them.
The Federalist Papers and Jefferson's or Madison's letter's aren't law. And the Constitution is simply the guide when it comes to Constitutional law. The U.S. Code and Federal Court decisions are the real law of the land.
With regards to the press and their right to publish things - New York Times Co. v. Sullivan set the current standard back in 1964. The court ruled 9-0 that the press has every right to publish articles on public figures so long as they don't cross the line into malice (also known as the malice standard). What this means is that public figures must be able to prove that a publisher or journalist knew a statement was false in order for it to be considered defamatory against the public figure.
Not surprisingly, that is a nearly impossible bar to clear.