Investigating the investigators? Why not?

[Into the Night]

How can Congress lay taxes if they can't create tax law?

They simply lay the taxes. Used to be they just billed property owners.

You do realize your argument is idiotic, don't you?

No, it isn't.

That statement doesn't even make sense. If they made an accusation without evidence and then jailed the person without a trial one could make an argument they did not provide an avenue for redress of grievances but there are other amendments that would take precedence at that point.

I'll just let this paradox stand as is so people can see your bad logic.

Irrelevant piffle. Submitting tax documents in no way violates the 4th and 5th amendment.

Yes it does.

There is a rather long history of people trying to make that claim to avoid taxes.

Quite true.

Some of them have spent time in jail for making such frivolous arguments.

But not all.

Many have avoided jail time for their ignorance but they still paid taxes and penalties.

The 4th and 5th amendments are not ignorance. You are making a compositional error fallacy now. In this case, the class is people. This is bigotry.

Let's examine this. If someone is accused without evidence then the person doing so violated the Constitution. Would you agree that is the essence of your statement?
If we accept your statement at face value it leads us to a couple of things.
1. You accused Hillary of committing crimes but have provided no evidence in support of that claim even though you were asked to do so.

I have provided evidence. You ignored it.

That means you have violated the Constitution.

The Constitution does not apply to me. It only applies to the federal government, and certain aspects of it apply to State governments.

2. Trump has accused certain persons with the FBI of crimes but provided no evidence in support of his claim.

He has.

That means Trump has violated the Constitution.

The Constitution does not apply to Trump personally. It applies to the federal government.

Trump took an oath to uphold the Constitution. What do you think we should do about his failure to uphold the Constitution?

He has not violated the Constitution.

More irrelevant piffle. You are assuming a conclusion that hasn't happened.

No, YOU are assuming a precedent that has NOT happened.

I never once said a court has the authority to change the Constitution.

Yes you did.

This would be a good example of a straw man on your part.

No, you did make that argument. You are still trying to make that argument. Fallacy fallacy.

Since the government has the document they can't be accused of seizing it from anyone else.

Yes they can.

There is no fourth amendment case based solely on possession of the document.

Yes there is.

There can only be a case based on the law which restricts who can see the tax returns. In the case of the law, it is quite clear that Congress can request to see it. If the tax return leads directly to a prosecution then a 4th and 5th amendment argument could be made because it would no longer be moot.

Case law does not override the Constitution of the United States. No court has the authority to change the Constitution.