Judicial Watch Sues over California Law Requiring Presidential Candidates to Submit Tax Returns

[Care4all]

It is Trump who has changed the standard for presidential candidates, by denying us access to his tax returns, that ALL OTHER CANDIDATES have given.

Voluntarily....started under Nixon.

.

ok. then WHY did he decide to break that standard, that trend of doing such? Why did he think he was special, and should not follow the trend?

Sunshine, is a good thing, and not a bad thing, unless you are Trump, it seems?

Why even take his side on this....? I do not understand you guys when it comes to this....??

Speaking of standards, we always had the standard of using the requirements outlined in the US Constitution to become President without question.

Trump showing his tax returns doesn't do him any good. It may only do him harm which is why Democrats want it. It has nothing to do with him being President. Democrats are looking for ways to discredit him as if they haven't tried that enough already.

If you were walking down a street and approached by a man who said he was going to beat you and take your money, would you go find a stick for him to beat you with???

How could showing his tax returns DO HIM HARM??? Is he crooked? Shouldn't we have been able to know this before he was elected?

We got to know what all the other candidate's tax returns contained... it's not fair to all of them, if he and he alone, gets to hide them from us... and get away with it... lies and all...

I do not understand WHY you can not support all of us, seeing all of the candidate's returns....

I'm certain before Trump, you supported us seeing candidate's tax returns....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It is Trump who has changed the standard for presidential candidates, by denying us access to his tax returns, that ALL OTHER CANDIDATES have given.

Voluntarily....started under Nixon.

.

ok. then WHY did he decide to break that standard, that trend of doing such? Why did he think he was special, and should not follow the trend?

Sunshine, is a good thing, and not a bad thing, unless you are Trump, it seems?

Why even take his side on this....? I do not understand you guys when it comes to this....??

Speaking of standards, we always had the standard of using the requirements outlined in the US Constitution to become President without question.

Trump showing his tax returns doesn't do him any good. It may only do him harm which is why Democrats want it. It has nothing to do with him being President. Democrats are looking for ways to discredit him as if they haven't tried that enough already.

If you were walking down a street and approached by a man who said he was going to beat you and take your money, would you go find a stick for him to beat you with???

How could showing his tax returns DO HIM HARM??? Is he crooked? Shouldn't we have been able to know this before he was elected?

We got to know what all the other candidate's tax returns contained... it's not fair to all of them, if he and he alone, gets to hide them from us... and get away with it... lies and all...

I do not understand WHY you can not support all of us, seeing all of the candidate's returns....

I'm certain before Trump, you supported us seeing candidate's tax returns....

Okay, when was the last time you examined a candidates tax returns Care? I bet you haven't looked at a single one, and neither have I, because it doesn't matter.

How would showing his tax returns do him harm? Perhaps he was not very charitable. Perhaps he paid 5% in income tax. Who knows? But whatever is in those returns has nothing to do with him running for office.

That's besides the fact he made an offer to show his returns. He challenged Hillary to surrender the transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street, and then he would exchange his tax returns for them. Hillary didn't even entertain the offer. What does she have to hide????

Trump gains zero by showing those returns, and it gives Democrats an opportunity to bash him or lie (as they always do) about his returns. So please tell me why Trump should give them that satisfaction?

After all, after he was elected he found out that DumBama was spying on him and his team. He found out about the surveillance warrants. He found out about dossier. The media has reported over 90% negative on Trump. He's been called every name in the book by the left including xenophobe, homophobe and racist.

Now if somebody did all that to you, would you give them the satisfaction of giving them your tax returns? For all we know, maybe he did plan on doing that until he was attacked so harshly.

 

[rightwinger]

What does Trump have to fear?

Every other candidate is not ashamed of their tax returns

Doesn't matter... we're talking about Federally protected information that a particular State legislature is trying to prise loose merely for partisan gain.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

Congress has a right to that information
NY has a right to release information when requested by Congress

 

[my2¢]

Our presidential election in November doesn't elect anybody to federal office. Voters are selecting a slate of people that in December will go to their state capitals and they'll cast votes for president.

So, you are saying that Federal Courts have no subject-matter jurisdiction over an election to determine their federal electors?

Bush v. Gore should have been over immediately if that's true.

In Bush vs Gore the federal court ruled had Florida had violated equal protection clause of the constitution because counties were inconsistent in how they were making determinations on questionable ballots. Now if California applies its election laws consistently throughout the state I'm saying the only constitutional law that applies is that those 18 and older can not be disqualified from voting due to age.

The suit filed is because it violates our Constitution by putting additional requirements to become President of the United States. In the Gore case, the state courts allowed ballots to be recounted beyond seven days. The Florida law clearly states all ballots must be turned in and certified within seven days. The Supreme Court returned that verdict back to the Florida courts to ask them WTF they thought they were doing? It's called judicial legislation. There was no Al Gore law that allowed those ballots to be recounted beyond the deadline as the law was written.

You seem to be under the impression that we live in a democracy and not a republic. We don't directly elect our presidents by popular vote. The electoral college consists of 538 members, each state is voting for their own slate of electors and is responsible for who gets on the ballot.

Because the process of qualifying for the election and having a candidate’s name put on the ballot varies from state to state, you should contact your state’s top election officer for more information. In most states, the Secretary of State is the official responsible for oversight of state elections, including the presidential election.
https://www.archives.gov/federal-re...ege/print_friendly.html?page=faq_content.html​

 

[Dragonlady]

No they don't. They haven't been deprived of anything. There has to be a candidate disqualified from running because of the law, and that candidate can sue, but voters don't have a case until a client is disqualified from running for office by his/her failure to comply with the law.

Only a crook or a liar would refuse. The request is not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is Trump's refusal to comply with this request.

Privacy is important. Recall, that is what RvW was founded upon.

The issue isn't whether privacy is important or not, it's whether the voters have standing to file the lawsuit. I would say "No they don't", not based on the Constitution, but because no voter has been harmed by this law, because no candidate has been removed from the ballot because of this law.

Unless or until this happens, the voters have no standing, and no case, because the voters have not been harmed. The first thing you have to prove in a lawsuit is that YOU, the Plaintiff, have personally suffered harm because of this law. Since no candidate has been removed from the ballot, no voter has been harmed.

You don't know much about our laws, do you?

Cases have been taken to court before anybody is harmed by them. If a law was written in violation of our US Constitution, you can take that to court anytime you desire. You may not have a monetary suit, but you can have the law rescinded.

A federal judge in Denver has tossed out a years-old lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights, saying that the plaintiffs did not show they were injured by the law and have no right to sue.

Federal judge tosses lawsuit challenging TABOR saying plaintiffs have no right to sue – The Denver Post

They do have to show harm, but that doesn't mean it must have already occurred.

I don't have to know about specific laws, I only have to know legal principles for this one. "No harm, no foul" is such a basic legal principle that it's an actual cliche.

If you have not been harmed, you have no case.

In the case of the Judicial Watch suit, a candidate would have to be removed from the ballot, for the voter to legitimately claim harm. If all candidates comply with the law and no candidate is ever removed from the ballot, JW will never have a cause of action on behalf of the voters because no voter will have been harmed. Candidates could make a Constiutional claim to privacy but they'd be on shakey grounds. If a candidate is running for President, the voters have a right to know his financial situation, and who he owes money to.

Someone brought up Roe v. Wade, as being a privacy matter, but these two things are quite different. In deciding Roe, the SC decided that the state has no compelling interest in the fetus, such that it would override the Plaintiff's right to privacy, but when a candidate is seeking to run for the highest office in the country, the public does have a compelling interest in knowing about his finances, which could then override the candidate's right to privacy.

The arguments would be interesting.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Our presidential election in November doesn't elect anybody to federal office. Voters are selecting a slate of people that in December will go to their state capitals and they'll cast votes for president.

So, you are saying that Federal Courts have no subject-matter jurisdiction over an election to determine their federal electors?

Bush v. Gore should have been over immediately if that's true.

In Bush vs Gore the federal court ruled had Florida had violated equal protection clause of the constitution because counties were inconsistent in how they were making determinations on questionable ballots. Now if California applies its election laws consistently throughout the state I'm saying the only constitutional law that applies is that those 18 and older can not be disqualified from voting due to age.

The suit filed is because it violates our Constitution by putting additional requirements to become President of the United States. In the Gore case, the state courts allowed ballots to be recounted beyond seven days. The Florida law clearly states all ballots must be turned in and certified within seven days. The Supreme Court returned that verdict back to the Florida courts to ask them WTF they thought they were doing? It's called judicial legislation. There was no Al Gore law that allowed those ballots to be recounted beyond the deadline as the law was written.

You seem to be under the impression that we live in a democracy and not a republic. We don't directly elect our presidents by popular vote. The electoral college consists of 538 members, each state is voting for their own slate of electors and is responsible for who gets on the ballot.

Because the process of qualifying for the election and having a candidate’s name put on the ballot varies from state to state, you should contact your state’s top election officer for more information. In most states, the Secretary of State is the official responsible for oversight of state elections, including the presidential election.
https://www.archives.gov/federal-re...ege/print_friendly.html?page=faq_content.html​

So WTF does that have to do with what I replied to?

What California is doing is adding a requirement to run for President in their state. If you want to change the requirements to run for President, you need to do so with a proposal of a constitutional amendment. You can't just write an additional requirement just for your state. That's what the lawsuit is about.

Beyond that, the law they wrote was specifically aimed towards one candidate. It's no different than if my state created a law that all candidates have to show their original birth certificate when DumBama was running. Or their college transcripts, or how their college was funded.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What does Trump have to fear?

Every other candidate is not ashamed of their tax returns

Doesn't matter... we're talking about Federally protected information that a particular State legislature is trying to prise loose merely for partisan gain.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

Congress has a right to that information
NY has a right to release information when requested by Congress

Congress does not have that right. The only time Congress can make such a request is if the tax returns have something to do with legislation, not as harassment. Read up on the IRS laws of releasing tax return information.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Voters have standing.

No they don't. They haven't been deprived of anything. There has to be a candidate disqualified from running because of the law, and that candidate can sue, but voters don't have a case until a client is disqualified from running for office by his/her failure to comply with the law.

Only a crook or a liar would refuse. The request is not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is Trump's refusal to comply with this request.

Privacy is important. Recall, that is what RvW was founded upon.

The issue isn't whether privacy is important or not, it's whether the voters have standing to file the lawsuit. I would say "No they don't", not based on the Constitution, but because no voter has been harmed by this law, because no candidate has been removed from the ballot because of this law.

Unless or until this happens, the voters have no standing, and no case, because the voters have not been harmed. The first thing you have to prove in a lawsuit is that YOU, the Plaintiff, have personally suffered harm because of this law. Since no candidate has been removed from the ballot, no voter has been harmed.

Incorrect.

Voters are harmed because their preferred candidate is not on the ballot because of statutory demands for information protected under Federal law.

There is no ballot.

You simply do not understand and you need to go back to law school.

Will a candidate be prevented from appearing on the ballot....FOR REELECTION no less?

You need to take that standing bullshit and forget it. You know not what you speak.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Voters have standing.

No they don't. They haven't been deprived of anything. There has to be a candidate disqualified from running because of the law, and that candidate can sue, but voters don't have a case until a client is disqualified from running for office by his/her failure to comply with the law.

Only a crook or a liar would refuse. The request is not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is Trump's refusal to comply with this request.

Privacy is important. Recall, that is what RvW was founded upon.

The issue isn't whether privacy is important or not, it's whether the voters have standing to file the lawsuit. I would say "No they don't", not based on the Constitution, but because no voter has been harmed by this law, because no candidate has been removed from the ballot because of this law.

Unless or until this happens, the voters have no standing, and no case, because the voters have not been harmed. The first thing you have to prove in a lawsuit is that YOU, the Plaintiff, have personally suffered harm because of this law. Since no candidate has been removed from the ballot, no voter has been harmed.

You don't know much about our laws, do you?

Cases have been taken to court before anybody is harmed by them. If a law was written in violation of our US Constitution, you can take that to court anytime you desire. You may not have a monetary suit, but you can have the law rescinded.

A federal judge in Denver has tossed out a years-old lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights, saying that the plaintiffs did not show they were injured by the law and have no right to sue.

Federal judge tosses lawsuit challenging TABOR saying plaintiffs have no right to sue – The Denver Post

Stop mixing issue.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Privacy is important. Recall, that is what RvW was founded upon.

The issue isn't whether privacy is important or not, it's whether the voters have standing to file the lawsuit. I would say "No they don't", not based on the Constitution, but because no voter has been harmed by this law, because no candidate has been removed from the ballot because of this law.

Unless or until this happens, the voters have no standing, and no case, because the voters have not been harmed. The first thing you have to prove in a lawsuit is that YOU, the Plaintiff, have personally suffered harm because of this law. Since no candidate has been removed from the ballot, no voter has been harmed.

You don't know much about our laws, do you?

Cases have been taken to court before anybody is harmed by them. If a law was written in violation of our US Constitution, you can take that to court anytime you desire. You may not have a monetary suit, but you can have the law rescinded.

A federal judge in Denver has tossed out a years-old lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights, saying that the plaintiffs did not show they were injured by the law and have no right to sue.

Federal judge tosses lawsuit challenging TABOR saying plaintiffs have no right to sue – The Denver Post

They do have to show harm, but that doesn't mean it must have already occurred.

I don't have to know about specific laws, I only have to know legal principles for this one. "No harm, no foul" is such a basic legal principle that it's an actual cliche.

If you have not been harmed, you have no case.

In the case of the Judicial Watch suit, a candidate would have to be removed from the ballot, for the voter to legitimately claim harm. If all candidates comply with the law and no candidate is ever removed from the ballot, JW will never have a cause of action on behalf of the voters because no voter will have been harmed. Candidates could make a Constiutional claim to privacy but they'd be on shakey grounds. If a candidate is running for President, the voters have a right to know his financial situation, and who he owes money to.

Someone brought up Roe v. Wade, as being a privacy matter, but these two things are quite different. In deciding Roe, the SC decided that the state has no compelling interest in the fetus, such that it would override the Plaintiff's right to privacy, but when a candidate is seeking to run for the highest office in the country, the public does have a compelling interest in knowing about his finances, which could then override the candidate's right to privacy.

The arguments would be interesting.

As I said before, the law will not survive the 9th circus, the supreme court decided that States can't add requirements for ballot access for federal offices in 1995.

Today's cases present a challenge to an amendment to the Arkansas State Constitution that prohibits the name of an otherwise eligible candidate for Congress from appearing on the general election ballot if that candidate has already served three terms in the House of Representatives or two terms in the Senate. The Arkansas Supreme Court held that the amendment violates the Federal Constitution. We agree with that holding. Such a state imposed restriction is contrary to the "fundamental principle of our representative democracy," embodied in the Constitution, that "the people should choose whom they please to govern them." Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 547 (1969) (internal quotation marks omitted). Allowing individual States to adopt their own qualifications for congressional service would be inconsistent with the Framers' vision of a uniform National Legislature representing the people of the United States. If the qualifications set forth in the text of the Constitution are to be changed, that text must be amended.

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).

.

 

[Slyhunter]

It is Trump who has changed the standard for presidential candidates, by denying us access to his tax returns, that ALL OTHER CANDIDATES have given.

Voluntarily....started under Nixon.

.

ok. then WHY did he decide to break that standard, that trend of doing such? Why did he think he was special, and should not follow the trend?

Sunshine, is a good thing, and not a bad thing, unless you are Trump, it seems?

Why even take his side on this....? I do not understand you guys when it comes to this....??

Speaking of standards, we always had the standard of using the requirements outlined in the US Constitution to become President without question.

Trump showing his tax returns doesn't do him any good. It may only do him harm which is why Democrats want it. It has nothing to do with him being President. Democrats are looking for ways to discredit him as if they haven't tried that enough already.

If you were walking down a street and approached by a man who said he was going to beat you and take your money, would you go find a stick for him to beat you with???

How could showing his tax returns DO HIM HARM??? Is he crooked? Shouldn't we have been able to know this before he was elected?

We got to know what all the other candidate's tax returns contained... it's not fair to all of them, if he and he alone, gets to hide them from us... and get away with it... lies and all...

I do not understand WHY you can not support all of us, seeing all of the candidate's returns....

I'm certain before Trump, you supported us seeing candidate's tax returns....

The more of something, in this case income, the more likely a mistake is made with it. And you liberals will declare every mistake a gross violation of the law even if it's just a mistake.

 

[Slyhunter]

What does Trump have to fear?

Every other candidate is not ashamed of their tax returns

Doesn't matter... we're talking about Federally protected information that a particular State legislature is trying to prise loose merely for partisan gain.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

Congress has a right to that information
NY has a right to release information when requested by Congress

Congress can go kiss my ass. This is why we need the right to bear arms. To keep Congress from butting into our business.

 

[bripat9643]

What does Trump have to fear?

Every other candidate is not ashamed of their tax returns

Doesn't matter... we're talking about Federally protected information that a particular State legislature is trying to prise loose merely for partisan gain.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

Congress has a right to that information
NY has a right to release information when requested by Congress

Wrong, shit for brains, it has no such right. The 4th Amendment says so.

 

[bripat9643]

Privacy is important. Recall, that is what RvW was founded upon.

The issue isn't whether privacy is important or not, it's whether the voters have standing to file the lawsuit. I would say "No they don't", not based on the Constitution, but because no voter has been harmed by this law, because no candidate has been removed from the ballot because of this law.

Unless or until this happens, the voters have no standing, and no case, because the voters have not been harmed. The first thing you have to prove in a lawsuit is that YOU, the Plaintiff, have personally suffered harm because of this law. Since no candidate has been removed from the ballot, no voter has been harmed.

You don't know much about our laws, do you?

Cases have been taken to court before anybody is harmed by them. If a law was written in violation of our US Constitution, you can take that to court anytime you desire. You may not have a monetary suit, but you can have the law rescinded.

A federal judge in Denver has tossed out a years-old lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights, saying that the plaintiffs did not show they were injured by the law and have no right to sue.

Federal judge tosses lawsuit challenging TABOR saying plaintiffs have no right to sue – The Denver Post

They do have to show harm, but that doesn't mean it must have already occurred.

I don't have to know about specific laws, I only have to know legal principles for this one. "No harm, no foul" is such a basic legal principle that it's an actual cliche.

If you have not been harmed, you have no case.

In the case of the Judicial Watch suit, a candidate would have to be removed from the ballot, for the voter to legitimately claim harm. If all candidates comply with the law and no candidate is ever removed from the ballot, JW will never have a cause of action on behalf of the voters because no voter will have been harmed. Candidates could make a Constiutional claim to privacy but they'd be on shakey grounds. If a candidate is running for President, the voters have a right to know his financial situation, and who he owes money to.

Someone brought up Roe v. Wade, as being a privacy matter, but these two things are quite different. In deciding Roe, the SC decided that the state has no compelling interest in the fetus, such that it would override the Plaintiff's right to privacy, but when a candidate is seeking to run for the highest office in the country, the public does have a compelling interest in knowing about his finances, which could then override the candidate's right to privacy.

The arguments would be interesting.

Wrong, dingbat. The possibility that you will be harmed is sufficient to justify a lawsuit.

You obviously don't know jack shit about the law.

 

[Issa]

I knew that was going to happen. If states can't impose term limits on members of Congress, then they can't require them to submit tax returns. The Petulant Dims believe that just because they whine about something, that means they are going to get it.

Judicial Watch Sues over California Law Requiring Presidential Candidates Appearing on Primary Ballot to Disclose Tax Returns - Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of four California voters to prevent the California secretary of state from implementing a new state law requiring all presidential candidates who wish to appear on California’s primary ballot to publicly disclose their personal tax returns from the past fPoliticsive years ( Jerry Griffin et al. v. Alex Padilla (No. 2:19-cv-01477). The suit alleges that the law unconstitutionally adds a new qualification for candidates for president. Judicial Watch’s clients include a registered Independent, Republican, and Democrat California voter.​

Away from the legality of this...why does it bother you that a candidate gets screened before he or she gets hold of your faith and the.countrys faith ?

The only point of this law is to screen out Republicans who have never held elective office.

I'm talking in general...why are you against vetting politicians ? Why are you against vetting trump even more to see if he is a corrupt or not ?

I'm against poking into people's personal lives. Aren't you? You idiots screamed like hell over the Monica Lewinski scandal even though Clinton signed the law that made previous sexual misconduct valid evidence in sex crimes cases.

Clinton who ? I'm not a pro Clinton. I think everyone that run the country needs to be vetted thoroughly, if he or she doesnt want to that means they hiding something. In trumps case he promised to release his taxes numerous times....and a man is his word.

 

[Slyhunter]

I knew that was going to happen. If states can't impose term limits on members of Congress, then they can't require them to submit tax returns. The Petulant Dims believe that just because they whine about something, that means they are going to get it.

Judicial Watch Sues over California Law Requiring Presidential Candidates Appearing on Primary Ballot to Disclose Tax Returns - Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of four California voters to prevent the California secretary of state from implementing a new state law requiring all presidential candidates who wish to appear on California’s primary ballot to publicly disclose their personal tax returns from the past fPoliticsive years ( Jerry Griffin et al. v. Alex Padilla (No. 2:19-cv-01477). The suit alleges that the law unconstitutionally adds a new qualification for candidates for president. Judicial Watch’s clients include a registered Independent, Republican, and Democrat California voter.​

Away from the legality of this...why does it bother you that a candidate gets screened before he or she gets hold of your faith and the.countrys faith ?

The only point of this law is to screen out Republicans who have never held elective office.

I'm talking in general...why are you against vetting politicians ? Why are you against vetting trump even more to see if he is a corrupt or not ?

I'm against poking into people's personal lives. Aren't you? You idiots screamed like hell over the Monica Lewinski scandal even though Clinton signed the law that made previous sexual misconduct valid evidence in sex crimes cases.

Clinton who ? I'm not a pro Clinton. I think everyone that run the country needs to be vetted thoroughly, if he or she doesnt want to that means they hiding something. In trumps case he promised to release his taxes numerous times....and a man is his word.

It would make it impossible for any rich Business man from running for election. And we need Rich Business men in Office to fix this damn country from the Professional Politicians.

 

[OKTexas]

Will be fun to watch this go through the system.

It may not make it through the courts, and may be dismissed, because those suing are not harmed??? AND because according to the constitution, aren't States given the power to set the parameters/rules of their own elections???

That is what the courts need to decide. Is this fundamentally different than the current ballot access rules on the books.

It was decided in 1995, see post #270.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Well, to split hairs, a state not putting someone on a ballot is not the same as preventing them from running for those offices. Again, splitting hairs, but that's the nature of our judicial system. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Like I said, I think the State will have the burden of proving this requirement is necessary for efficiency purposes, rather than an attempt to advance a political football.

.

California won't win.
See Justice Brennans opinion in 1975 case, Cousins v. Wigoda.

not the same thing. States can determine who they have their electors, elect.

Are you a Constitutional lawyer?

does it matter? all i need is a good argument.

On this you have no argument at all, it's already been decided by the supreme court in 1995.

.

 

[pknopp]

No they don't. They haven't been deprived of anything. There has to be a candidate disqualified from running because of the law, and that candidate can sue, but voters don't have a case until a client is disqualified from running for office by his/her failure to comply with the law.

Only a crook or a liar would refuse. The request is not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is Trump's refusal to comply with this request.

Privacy is important. Recall, that is what RvW was founded upon.

The issue isn't whether privacy is important or not, it's whether the voters have standing to file the lawsuit. I would say "No they don't", not based on the Constitution, but because no voter has been harmed by this law, because no candidate has been removed from the ballot because of this law.

Unless or until this happens, the voters have no standing, and no case, because the voters have not been harmed. The first thing you have to prove in a lawsuit is that YOU, the Plaintiff, have personally suffered harm because of this law. Since no candidate has been removed from the ballot, no voter has been harmed.

You don't know much about our laws, do you?

Cases have been taken to court before anybody is harmed by them. If a law was written in violation of our US Constitution, you can take that to court anytime you desire. You may not have a monetary suit, but you can have the law rescinded.

A federal judge in Denver has tossed out a years-old lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights, saying that the plaintiffs did not show they were injured by the law and have no right to sue.

Federal judge tosses lawsuit challenging TABOR saying plaintiffs have no right to sue – The Denver Post

They do have to show harm, but that doesn't mean it must have already occurred.

If you say so.

 

[Care4all]

Every candidate for the past 40 years have shown their taxes, with the exception of Crooked Donald, so it has sort of become the norm... expected.

If the court takes the case, it will be interesting to follow.

But I will say, there is some merit to the argument that this could allow all 50 states to have different measures to become a presidential candidate, which they all have now in one degree or another, but it could make it worse if other states start adding their own different measures based off of this requirement being allowed?? I dunno??? This requirement has been the norm though, even without a specific law on it...

on the other hand, in this global economy and world we live in, having access to the candidate's returns could give us voters information on whether the candidate is likely to be breaking the emoluments clause in the future, if they became president.

What previous candidates have done is not binding on anyone unless it becomes law. It also doesn't matter what you believe "has merit." All that matters is the law, and the SC has established that states cannot not create their own requirements for candidates.

You just made it clear that the motive behind this law is purely political.

States ALREADY HAVE THEIR OWN REQUIREMENTS for candidates to be on their ballots... and none of those have been nailed as unconstitutional?

This is why this case will be interesting, if the court takes it.

They all have to do with facilitating the election process. None of them are arbitrary constraints designed to foster a political outcome.

Ya know, if the law said only republican candidates have to release their taxes and democratic politicians do not have to, then maybe I'd agree with you.... but every candidate having to do such, puts it on a level playing field...?

We all know that Democrats would never nominate a businessman for the presidency. They only nominate professional politicians. We've seen what their propaganda organs do with the kind of tax returns a businessman files.

WHAT is your real concern with businessmen showing their tax returns? They have to file taxes like the rest of us....

Or are you implying that rich businessmen cheat, and they should be given a pass, not given to regular citizens??

I don't get what you are trying to 'protect' with Trump???