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

[Dragonlady]

I think the Trump supporters are afraid of what they will find out.

You mean the stuff in there that Obama's IRS couldn't find?

My God, the dumbass in you is terminal!

We don't think there's anything illegal in his taxes, but there will be a lot of information the public needs to know. Trump has been borrowing heavily from the Russians and the Saudis. Trump Hotel Toronto was financed by the Saudi's and the building was sold to a Russian born investor. The Trump Corporation was managing the facility on behalf of the Russian investor when the owner filed for bankruptcy in 2016.

American banks stopped lending to Trump after his four casino bankruptcies in the 1990's. Who Trump owes money to at this point is important, as are the sources of his income, and what his true net worth is as well. Especially considering that Trump is now selling nuclear technologies to the Saudi's, and is lifting sanctions against Russian oligarchs.

I strongly believe that the financial statemens will reveal that Trump isn't worth the billions he claims, and that his net worth is, as Deutches Banke has claims, closer to $300 million, which is what Fred left him in the first place.

And you know all this how?

A forty year career in banking, finance and law.

In other words, you don't know any of that. You're regurgitating leftwing conspiracy theories.

I do know all of it. I have a friend who worked on the crew building Trump Tower in Toronto. It was literally next door to my office at King/Bay/Adelaide Street. He told me that the Saudis were always on site. That Trump supervised construction but the Saudi's signed the cheques:

How every investor lost money on Trump Tower Toronto (but Donald Trump made millions anyway) | The Star

I've watched Trump since the 1970's, and he's made a mess of everything he's ever touched. My favourite quote from the Star:

In the last decade, more than 400 condominium towers of 14 storeys or more have been successfully built in Toronto, according to records at City Hall. Among those, the half-dozen industry insiders and analysts interviewed for this story could identify only one that went bankrupt after completion: the Trump International Hotel and Tower Toronto.

 

[Care4all]

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).

.

But the Constitution does specifically state 2 year and 6 year terms specifically, of which Arkansas tried to over ride, so the ruling does make sense.

My question would be, what specifically does the Constitution say about the States, and their vetting process for putting candidates on the ballot, that would prohibit this measure? The Arkansas case was clearly spelled out, with no term limits in the constitution..., of which the State was trying to go against???

 

[pknopp]

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).

.

But the Constitution does specifically state 2 year and 6 year terms specifically, of which Arkansas tried to over ride, so the ruling does make sense.

My question would be, what specifically does the Constitution say about the States, and their vetting process for putting candidates on the ballot, that would prohibit this measure? The Arkansas case was clearly spelled out, with no term limits in the constitution..., of which the State was trying to go against???

Right To Privacy - constitution | Laws.com

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

And you think a commie governor would sign a bill that would do what you say it will do?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

For monetary rewards, yes.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

You seem not to like transparency. You have no privacy in this country they know every little thing about you, they sexually harass you when you go through airports, they listen to your calls, read your emails, and they can fire for saying something offensive on social media. And they take your money and spend it like there is no tomorrow.

Are you saying you support all those things? I certainly don't. Privacy is the opposite of transparency. So on a personal level, I oppose it. I believe government should be transparent- like turning over all the text messages between Peter Strozk and Lisa Page.

How about all the meeting transcripts between trumps campaign and Russia? Or tax returns so we can make sure he is not a crook more than he is.

There are no meeting transcripts because there were no meetings, moron.

Tax returns are protected by the 4th Amendment.

 

[OnePercenter]

I, for one, would like to know the timing of tRump personal and tRump organization loans from Deutsche Bank and Russian money laundering.

For two, Bripat is a Canadian, so this is really none of his business.

 

[OnePercenter]

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.

You seem not to like transparency. You have no privacy in this country they know every little thing about you, they sexually harass you when you go through airports, they listen to your calls, read your emails, and they can fire for saying something offensive on social media. And they take your money and spend it like there is no tomorrow.

Are you saying you support all those things? I certainly don't. Privacy is the opposite of transparency. So on a personal level, I oppose it. I believe government should be transparent- like turning over all the text messages between Peter Strozk and Lisa Page.

How about all the meeting transcripts between trumps campaign and Russia? Or tax returns so we can make sure he is not a crook more than he is.

There are no meeting transcripts because there were no meetings, moron.

Tax returns are protected by the 4th Amendment.

Care to post relevant case law (such as I.N.A. §237(a)(3)(D).)?

 

[OnePercenter]

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.

And you think a commie governor would sign a bill that would do what you say it will do?

Such as the commie FLOTUS and her card carrying Father?

 

[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.

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.

All it takes is the 'reasonable prospect' or likelihood that such a law will have such a result, to obtain the necessary injunction preventing its execution.

 

[jillian]

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.​

There is no basis for the suit. And every state sets its own election rules

Now stfu

 

[danielpalos]

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).

.

But the Constitution does specifically state 2 year and 6 year terms specifically, of which Arkansas tried to over ride, so the ruling does make sense.

My question would be, what specifically does the Constitution say about the States, and their vetting process for putting candidates on the ballot, that would prohibit this measure? The Arkansas case was clearly spelled out, with no term limits in the constitution..., of which the State was trying to go against???

Right To Privacy - constitution | Laws.com

Not for a public office. That is the critical difference.

 

[pknopp]

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).

.

But the Constitution does specifically state 2 year and 6 year terms specifically, of which Arkansas tried to over ride, so the ruling does make sense.

My question would be, what specifically does the Constitution say about the States, and their vetting process for putting candidates on the ballot, that would prohibit this measure? The Arkansas case was clearly spelled out, with no term limits in the constitution..., of which the State was trying to go against???

Right To Privacy - constitution | Laws.com

Not for a public office. That is the critical difference.

I've asked this 4-5 times with no answer. So you are saying that a state could require your health records?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

All it takes is the 'reasonable prospect' or likelihood that such a law will have such a result, to obtain the necessary injunction preventing its execution.

No reasonable prospect at all, if he complies for the sake of that public office.

 

[danielpalos]

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).

.

But the Constitution does specifically state 2 year and 6 year terms specifically, of which Arkansas tried to over ride, so the ruling does make sense.

My question would be, what specifically does the Constitution say about the States, and their vetting process for putting candidates on the ballot, that would prohibit this measure? The Arkansas case was clearly spelled out, with no term limits in the constitution..., of which the State was trying to go against???

Right To Privacy - constitution | Laws.com

Not for a public office. That is the critical difference.

I've asked this 4-5 times with no answer. So you are saying that a state could require your health records?

They can require a health exam.

 

[pknopp]

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).

.

But the Constitution does specifically state 2 year and 6 year terms specifically, of which Arkansas tried to over ride, so the ruling does make sense.

My question would be, what specifically does the Constitution say about the States, and their vetting process for putting candidates on the ballot, that would prohibit this measure? The Arkansas case was clearly spelled out, with no term limits in the constitution..., of which the State was trying to go against???

Right To Privacy - constitution | Laws.com

Not for a public office. That is the critical difference.

I've asked this 4-5 times with no answer. So you are saying that a state could require your health records?

They can require a health exam.

Of course that is not the same thing. So the answer would be no, they can't require your health records? That running for office does not negate your right to privacy?

 

[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.​

There is no basis for the suit. And every state sets its own election rules

Now stfu

There is a very legitimate basis for the suit, and states don't get to impose conditions on elections for federal office, dingbat. The SC has already ruled on that issue.

 

[danielpalos]

But the Constitution does specifically state 2 year and 6 year terms specifically, of which Arkansas tried to over ride, so the ruling does make sense.

My question would be, what specifically does the Constitution say about the States, and their vetting process for putting candidates on the ballot, that would prohibit this measure? The Arkansas case was clearly spelled out, with no term limits in the constitution..., of which the State was trying to go against???

Right To Privacy - constitution | Laws.com

Not for a public office. That is the critical difference.

I've asked this 4-5 times with no answer. So you are saying that a state could require your health records?

They can require a health exam.

Of course that is not the same thing. So the answer would be no, they can't require your health records? That running for office does not negate your right to privacy?

Relevance is key.

 

[pknopp]

Right To Privacy - constitution | Laws.com

Not for a public office. That is the critical difference.

I've asked this 4-5 times with no answer. So you are saying that a state could require your health records?

They can require a health exam.

Of course that is not the same thing. So the answer would be no, they can't require your health records? That running for office does not negate your right to privacy?

Relevance is key.

Where do we find this exception at?

 

[danielpalos]

Not for a public office. That is the critical difference.

I've asked this 4-5 times with no answer. So you are saying that a state could require your health records?

They can require a health exam.

Of course that is not the same thing. So the answer would be no, they can't require your health records? That running for office does not negate your right to privacy?

Relevance is key.

Where do we find this exception at?

Common sense?