Legal experts make clear that the law is not ambiguous and the president can’t simply order the Treasury Department to keep his returns secret.

Lots of laws are “not ambiguous,” but that is never the end of the inquiry. The new Alabama abortion law is not ambiguous either.

Let’s suppose you’re dating the Senate Finance Committee’s daughter and he decides to check you out, strictly for personal reasons. Does this “unambiguous” power compel release of your returns? Or do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to your returns, limited only by a legitimate Congressional interest in them? In other words, does Congress’s taxing power give anyone the power to read your returns for personal reasons?

I’m not saying that a legislative purpose cannot be established for seeing the president’s returns, just that “not ambiguous” is not the battleground. I am also not impressed by the rationale offered for the original law. Congressional “oversight” does not seem to me consistent with the idea of co-equal branches. I believe an inquiry into a nominee’s tax returns are legitimate in connection with the Senate’s advise and consent function, and with respect to an impeachment inquiry. But a fishing expedition is a fishing expedition, and I do not believe Congress does or should have the power to look for trouble. (It seems obvious to me that Trump has given the House ample reason to review his returns in connection with an impeachment inquiry. I just wonder if they are prepared to defend their request on that basis rather than on the simple claim that the statute is “not ambiguous.” .

An IRS memo leaked today apparently says that executive privilege is the only basis on which a return can be withheld under the statute. That is probably true. It’s not clear how executive privilege applies to the pre-election returns on the president, but “executive privilege” can be understood to mean “co-equal stature,” i.e., that the officers of the executive branch may refuse any order that invades the executive’s turf as implementing agency. So, we may be back to the one and only remedy Congress has for an obstreperous executive: impeachment. And, of course, there’s the ballot box.

Politicians over-reach for a living. Democrats are particularly good setting bad precedents by doing it. Just how much mischief can the Senate Finance Committee chair do with this “not ambiguous” statute?