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

[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 You may not have a monetary suit, but you can have the law rescinded.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

People have sued for all kinds of things even though not harmed. You can file a monetary suit if you believed you were financially harmed by some law, but then you have to show what that harm or expense was.

Or in other words....you have to prove you were harmed.

 

[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

Stop mixing issue.

.

"Stop proving your position"

 

[Care4all]

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???

/——/ So Texas says no pro abortion candidates allowed on the ballot and Progs will be cool with it.

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. And more than most candidates running, he, with his GLOBAL businesses, can be breaking the emoluments clause of the constitution as President.

I do not understand why you and all citizens would NOT WANT TO KNOW and want to see his tax returns, along with all the other candidates running.?
WHY have we made this a standard for 40 some years for presidential candidates? WHY did he lie about it, and tell us he would show them? WHAT is he hiding? What makes him special, and above all other candidates running? Why should he be given this special treatment?

Again, you use the term "standard" because you know it's not a law. In other words, you know it's not required.

It was required, it may not have had a Statute on the books, but it has been part of our vetting process for presidents for 45 years, until the special snowflake, crooked Donald.

YOU on the other hand demanded that Obama supply his birth certificate, which he did provide, while never requiring it from other presidential candidates, when it was never a vetting standard for candidates.

 

[Care4all]

the way to get around having to show your tax returns is to sue Congress - fuck the voters


Analysts say most Americans want to see Trump's tax returns

Doesn't matter.

What DOES matter is the Constitution, and statutory compliance with same.

And that is precisely what the State is doing, isn't it? Creating a STATUTE, making it a legal requirement for everyone running... a statutory requirement??

 

[my2¢]

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.

You seem under impression that our election for president is by popular vote and there's no Electoral College. My stance is that through this legislation California Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot and it aids, not hinders Trump's re-election. .

On election day in November 2020 we are voting for a slate of electors. Our Constitution limits the presidential vote itself to only the 538 folks who will make their selection on the first Monday following the second Wednesday in December 2020. It's my belief that Trump has a better shot at taking those California electoral votes away from the Democrats if that state's Republicans place their slate of electors under the name of a designated hitter rather than Trump himself.

 

[Kondor3]

the way to get around having to show your tax returns is to sue Congress - fuck the voters


Analysts say most Americans want to see Trump's tax returns

Doesn't matter.

What DOES matter is the Constitution, and statutory compliance with same.

And that is precisely what the State is doing, isn't it? Creating a STATUTE, making it a legal requirement for everyone running... a statutory requirement??

No. The State created a statute that will ultimately found to be NON-compliant with the US Constitution. Thus, the upcoming court-fight.

 

[pknopp]

the way to get around having to show your tax returns is to sue Congress - fuck the voters


Analysts say most Americans want to see Trump's tax returns

Doesn't matter.

What DOES matter is the Constitution, and statutory compliance with same.

And that is precisely what the State is doing, isn't it? Creating a STATUTE, making it a legal requirement for everyone running... a statutory requirement??

Could they require your medical records?

 

[Wyatt earp]

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???

One state is trying to govern the entire United States.

.

No, actually, they are simply governing their own State's election process.

It affects no other States, and their election process.

California is not going to hurt someone like president Trump, because never in a million years, would he have won California and their Electors... on the ballot or not on the ballot.

It will hurt the Dems if one of their candidates does not want to release their taxes.

It's gerrymandering, it disfranshied (spl?) California voters

Damn again what's next California says you can only run for president if you can run a four minute mile

It targets Trump specifically...


It's more childish games by the democrats, tit for tat/lowering the bar some more.

Requiring tax returns to be shown for Presidential candidates, is NOT some off the wall new standard.... it has been the standard for 4 decades or more.... people voting no know other standard. It does relate to the presidency, unlike a four minute mile. Trump BROKE that standard, California did NOT?

Why does EVERYTHING, every rule, every standard, every protocol, NOT have to be followed by Trump? Nepotism, tax returns, security clearances, vetting of Admin and Cabinet positions, emoluments clause etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

this guy is such a pansy... everything has to be changed for him.... he's just so special.... special needs is more like it! special snowflake is also more like it.

Enough is enough, he needs to man up, stop lying, and put his big boy pants on.

What the hell is he trying to hide from us, after lying and telling ALL OF US THAT HE WOULD RELEASE HIS TAXES, once the audit was done....

No one can get this chronic liar to ever tell the truth, about anything. I don't trust him, and YOU shouldn't either imho!

Yes it was standard protocol untill Harry Reid broke it for political gain when he lied about Romney's tax return and said latter he was glad he did it.

Anyone would be out of their mind now to release thier tax returns with the dishonest Democrats .

 

[Harpy Eagle]

the way to get around having to show your tax returns is to sue Congress - fuck the voters


Analysts say most Americans want to see Trump's tax returns

Doesn't matter.

What DOES matter is the Constitution, and statutory compliance with same.

And that is precisely what the State is doing, isn't it? Creating a STATUTE, making it a legal requirement for everyone running... a statutory requirement??

No. The State created a statute that will ultimately found to be NON-compliant with the US Constitution. Thus, the upcoming court-fight.

Which specific part of the US Constitution is it non-compliant with?

 

[Kondor3]

the way to get around having to show your tax returns is to sue Congress - fuck the voters


Analysts say most Americans want to see Trump's tax returns

Doesn't matter.

What DOES matter is the Constitution, and statutory compliance with same.

And that is precisely what the State is doing, isn't it? Creating a STATUTE, making it a legal requirement for everyone running... a statutory requirement??

No. The State created a statute that will ultimately found to be NON-compliant with the US Constitution. Thus, the upcoming court-fight.

Which specific part of the US Constitution is it non-compliant with?

Good question... the Conservative-stacked Supreme Court majority will come-up with some juicy rationalization or another... stay tuned...

 

[pknopp]

the way to get around having to show your tax returns is to sue Congress - fuck the voters


Analysts say most Americans want to see Trump's tax returns

Doesn't matter.

What DOES matter is the Constitution, and statutory compliance with same.

And that is precisely what the State is doing, isn't it? Creating a STATUTE, making it a legal requirement for everyone running... a statutory requirement??

No. The State created a statute that will ultimately found to be NON-compliant with the US Constitution. Thus, the upcoming court-fight.

Which specific part of the US Constitution is it non-compliant with?

Right to Privacy: Constitutional Rights & Privacy Laws

 

[Dragonlady]

the way to get around having to show your tax returns is to sue Congress - fuck the voters


Analysts say most Americans want to see Trump's tax returns

Doesn't matter.

What DOES matter is the Constitution, and statutory compliance with same.

And that is precisely what the State is doing, isn't it? Creating a STATUTE, making it a legal requirement for everyone running... a statutory requirement??

No. The State created a statute that will ultimately found to be NON-compliant with the US Constitution. Thus, the upcoming court-fight.

The statute may well be non-compliant with the Constitution, but that's not the basis of the Judicial Watch suit. The JW lawsuit is claiming harm to voters, who won't be able to vote for national candidates who don't comply with the law. Until a candidate is stricken from the ballot for failure to comply with the statute, JW has no case.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

So no one is entitled to privacy of any kind? I shudder at the kind of country you want us to become. Fortunately the constitution differs from what you believe.

 

[bripat9643]

the way to get around having to show your tax returns is to sue Congress - fuck the voters


Analysts say most Americans want to see Trump's tax returns

Doesn't matter.

What DOES matter is the Constitution, and statutory compliance with same.

And that is precisely what the State is doing, isn't it? Creating a STATUTE, making it a legal requirement for everyone running... a statutory requirement??

No. The State created a statute that will ultimately found to be NON-compliant with the US Constitution. Thus, the upcoming court-fight.

The statute may well be non-compliant with the Constitution, but that's not the basis of the Judicial Watch suit. The JW lawsuit is claiming harm to voters, who won't be able to vote for national candidates who don't comply with the law. Until a candidate is stricken from the ballot for failure to comply with the statute, JW has no case.

Wrong again, you stupid dingbat. How many times do you have to be told that your legal theories are wrong?

 

[bripat9643]

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???

business taxes can be very complicated, with a lot of items that the average voter doesn't understand. This makes them ripe for demagogues like you to distort and mischaracterize. We've already seen that with the treatment that Romney's taxes recieved.

 

[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

People have sued for all kinds of things even though not harmed. You can file a monetary suit if you believed you were financially harmed by some law, but then you have to show what that harm or expense was.

Or in other words....you have to prove you were harmed.

Or will be harmed.

 

[pknopp]

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

People have sued for all kinds of things even though not harmed. You can file a monetary suit if you believed you were financially harmed by some law, but then you have to show what that harm or expense was.

Or in other words....you have to prove you were harmed.

Or will be harmed.

Courts are not Ms Cleo.

 

[bripat9643]

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???

/——/ So Texas says no pro abortion candidates allowed on the ballot and Progs will be cool with it.

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. And more than most candidates running, he, with his GLOBAL businesses, can be breaking the emoluments clause of the constitution as President.

I do not understand why you and all citizens would NOT WANT TO KNOW and want to see his tax returns, along with all the other candidates running.?
WHY have we made this a standard for 40 some years for presidential candidates? WHY did he lie about it, and tell us he would show them? WHAT is he hiding? What makes him special, and above all other candidates running? Why should he be given this special treatment?

Again, you use the term "standard" because you know it's not a law. In other words, you know it's not required.

It was required, it may not have had a Statute on the books, but it has been part of our vetting process for presidents for 45 years, until the special snowflake, crooked Donald.

YOU on the other hand demanded that Obama supply his birth certificate, which he did provide, while never requiring it from other presidential candidates, when it was never a vetting standard for candidates.

If there was no statute on the books, then it wasn't required. You need to get a good dictionary, because you obviously don't understand the meaning of common words.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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???

/——/ So Texas says no pro abortion candidates allowed on the ballot and Progs will be cool with it.

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. And more than most candidates running, he, with his GLOBAL businesses, can be breaking the emoluments clause of the constitution as President.

I do not understand why you and all citizens would NOT WANT TO KNOW and want to see his tax returns, along with all the other candidates running.?
WHY have we made this a standard for 40 some years for presidential candidates? WHY did he lie about it, and tell us he would show them? WHAT is he hiding? What makes him special, and above all other candidates running? Why should he be given this special treatment?

Again, you use the term "standard" because you know it's not a law. In other words, you know it's not required.

It was required, it may not have had a Statute on the books, but it has been part of our vetting process for presidents for 45 years, until the special snowflake, crooked Donald.

YOU on the other hand demanded that Obama supply his birth certificate, which he did provide, while never requiring it from other presidential candidates, when it was never a vetting standard for candidates.

/——/ It’s not required loser - give it up already. BTW Ted BELCH Kennedy never released his returns when he ran. So STFU

 

[Cellblock2429]

the way to get around having to show your tax returns is to sue Congress - fuck the voters


Analysts say most Americans want to see Trump's tax returns

Doesn't matter.

What DOES matter is the Constitution, and statutory compliance with same.

And that is precisely what the State is doing, isn't it? Creating a STATUTE, making it a legal requirement for everyone running... a statutory requirement??

/——-/ State law doesn’t override Federal law, otherwise Blue States could reinstate slavery.