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

[Care4all]

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.

What are California's laws on faithless electors? You forgot to consider that those electors may not be able to change their votes. Also, how would you get the designated hitters name on the ballot since he would not be the party nominee?

Yep California is one of those 29 states having a law regarding pledged electors, they possibly could be hit with a fine of say $1000 each. In past there has never been consequences but even in worse case where they'd be force to vote in accordance with the popular vote, a successful day at the polls would deny the Democrats those expected electoral votes.

Getting a name the designated hitter's name on the ballot would be a simple matter of collecting the required number of signatures. Looking at California's 2016 ballot, heck if the Peace and Freedom Party could collect the signatures, Republicans should be able to handle getting the necessary John Hancocks with a snap of the fingers. I think Dennis Rodman would do well in California.

You don't think out the problem very well, do you?

First, the place holder would have to win the popular vote in an ever increasingly liberal state. Then, each of that person's electors would have to be faithless, and subject themselves to those penalties in order to vote for Trump.

What are the odds?

This law was specifically written for one particular candidate, one particular party, and for one particular election. I don't think they would have gone through all that trouble for one person unless they had something else up their sleeve.

If that were the case then the law would be written that only Republican candidates... have to show them....

But it is for everyone.

Are you implying that only Donald Trump, out of all presidential Candidates now and in the future, has something to hide from the public in his taxes and all the other candidates are honest, and do not???

Or that no other Democratic candidate is wealthy, with businesses, that the public can scrutinize their tax returns on??

 

[Cellblock2429]

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.

/——-/ Obozo’s IRS has already cleared Trump. Sorry Spanky.

 

[pknopp]

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.

What are California's laws on faithless electors? You forgot to consider that those electors may not be able to change their votes. Also, how would you get the designated hitters name on the ballot since he would not be the party nominee?

Yep California is one of those 29 states having a law regarding pledged electors, they possibly could be hit with a fine of say $1000 each. In past there has never been consequences but even in worse case where they'd be force to vote in accordance with the popular vote, a successful day at the polls would deny the Democrats those expected electoral votes.

Getting a name the designated hitter's name on the ballot would be a simple matter of collecting the required number of signatures. Looking at California's 2016 ballot, heck if the Peace and Freedom Party could collect the signatures, Republicans should be able to handle getting the necessary John Hancocks with a snap of the fingers. I think Dennis Rodman would do well in California.

You don't think out the problem very well, do you?

First, the place holder would have to win the popular vote in an ever increasingly liberal state. Then, each of that person's electors would have to be faithless, and subject themselves to those penalties in order to vote for Trump.

What are the odds?

This law was specifically written for one particular candidate, one particular party, and for one particular election. I don't think they would have gone through all that trouble for one person unless they had something else up their sleeve.

If that were the case than the law would be written that only Republican candidates... have to show them....

But it is for everyone.

Are you implying that only Donald Trump, out of all presidential Candidates now and in the future, has something to hide from the public in his taxes and all the other candidates are honest, and do not???

Or that no other Democratic candidate is wealthy, with businesses, that the public can scrutinize their tax returns on??

If it's important why shouldn't everyone? Has Pelosi ever released hers? She's third in line.

 

[Care4all]

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.

/——-/ Obozo’s IRS has already cleared Trump. Sorry Spanky.

Huh????

 

[Kondor3]

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.

There is no reasonable prospect that voters will be harmed.

"Harm" in this instance is defined as one party crafting law to keep another party's candidate off the ballot, thereby restricting a voter's choices. Harm, indeed.

 

[Kondor3]

...every state in the union has rules to be on their ballot...rules that are not included in the 12th. Are they all NON-compliant with the US Constitution. Evan McMullin could only get on the ballots in 11 states because of the rules and nobody was crying to the courts to change them.

That is now changed.

People are now, indeed, 'crying' to the courts to change them.

The People's Democratic Socialist Republik of Kalipornia has finally gone too far in trying to stack the deck.

And now they're gonna get hammered for it in Federal court.

Most excellent...

 

[Care4all]

What are California's laws on faithless electors? You forgot to consider that those electors may not be able to change their votes. Also, how would you get the designated hitters name on the ballot since he would not be the party nominee?

Yep California is one of those 29 states having a law regarding pledged electors, they possibly could be hit with a fine of say $1000 each. In past there has never been consequences but even in worse case where they'd be force to vote in accordance with the popular vote, a successful day at the polls would deny the Democrats those expected electoral votes.

Getting a name the designated hitter's name on the ballot would be a simple matter of collecting the required number of signatures. Looking at California's 2016 ballot, heck if the Peace and Freedom Party could collect the signatures, Republicans should be able to handle getting the necessary John Hancocks with a snap of the fingers. I think Dennis Rodman would do well in California.

You don't think out the problem very well, do you?

First, the place holder would have to win the popular vote in an ever increasingly liberal state. Then, each of that person's electors would have to be faithless, and subject themselves to those penalties in order to vote for Trump.

What are the odds?

This law was specifically written for one particular candidate, one particular party, and for one particular election. I don't think they would have gone through all that trouble for one person unless they had something else up their sleeve.

If that were the case than the law would be written that only Republican candidates... have to show them....

But it is for everyone.

Are you implying that only Donald Trump, out of all presidential Candidates now and in the future, has something to hide from the public in his taxes and all the other candidates are honest, and do not???

Or that no other Democratic candidate is wealthy, with businesses, that the public can scrutinize their tax returns on??

If it's important why shouldn't everyone? Has Pelosi ever released hers? She's third in line.

I think that's a good idea for all elected officials...

Right now they all have to show financial disclosures each year, any conflicts of interest go to the Ethics Division to clear or ban....

But I am uncertain if they have to show their actual tax return?

 

[pknopp]

Yep California is one of those 29 states having a law regarding pledged electors, they possibly could be hit with a fine of say $1000 each. In past there has never been consequences but even in worse case where they'd be force to vote in accordance with the popular vote, a successful day at the polls would deny the Democrats those expected electoral votes.

Getting a name the designated hitter's name on the ballot would be a simple matter of collecting the required number of signatures. Looking at California's 2016 ballot, heck if the Peace and Freedom Party could collect the signatures, Republicans should be able to handle getting the necessary John Hancocks with a snap of the fingers. I think Dennis Rodman would do well in California.

You don't think out the problem very well, do you?

First, the place holder would have to win the popular vote in an ever increasingly liberal state. Then, each of that person's electors would have to be faithless, and subject themselves to those penalties in order to vote for Trump.

What are the odds?

This law was specifically written for one particular candidate, one particular party, and for one particular election. I don't think they would have gone through all that trouble for one person unless they had something else up their sleeve.

If that were the case than the law would be written that only Republican candidates... have to show them....

But it is for everyone.

Are you implying that only Donald Trump, out of all presidential Candidates now and in the future, has something to hide from the public in his taxes and all the other candidates are honest, and do not???

Or that no other Democratic candidate is wealthy, with businesses, that the public can scrutinize their tax returns on??

If it's important why shouldn't everyone? Has Pelosi ever released hers? She's third in line.

I think that's a good idea for all elected officials...

Right now they all have to show financial disclosures each year, any conflicts of interest go to the Ethics Division to clear or ban....

But I am uncertain if they have to show their actual tax return?

It didn't seem to have worked.

Pelosi Leads List Of Conflict Of Interest Dems | Investor's Business Daily

 

[Cellblock2429]

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.

/——-/ Obozo’s IRS has already cleared Trump. Sorry Spanky.

Huh????

/—-/ So you’re saying Obozo’s IRS let Trump get away with tax fraud? You must be a racist White Supremest.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

...every state in the union has rules to be on their ballot...rules that are not included in the 12th. Are they all NON-compliant with the US Constitution. Evan McMullin could only get on the ballots in 11 states because of the rules and nobody was crying to the courts to change them.

That is now changed.

People are now, indeed, 'crying' to the courts to change them.

The People's Democratic Socialist Republik of Kalipornia has finally gone too far in trying to stack the deck.

And now they're gonna get hammered for it in Federal court.

Most excellent...

Do you have some examples of the signature requirements in other states being challenged in other states?

 

[Kondor3]

...every state in the union has rules to be on their ballot...rules that are not included in the 12th. Are they all NON-compliant with the US Constitution. Evan McMullin could only get on the ballots in 11 states because of the rules and nobody was crying to the courts to change them.

That is now changed.

People are now, indeed, 'crying' to the courts to change them.

The People's Democratic Socialist Republik of Kalipornia has finally gone too far in trying to stack the deck.

And now they're gonna get hammered for it in Federal court.

Most excellent...

Do you have some examples of the signature requirements in other states being challenged in other states?

Immaterial.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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?

Uhm we don't know could it possibly be the 12th amendment dumb fuck?



No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident ...



That's it the only fucking qualifications..

Well, dumbfuck, every state in the union has rules to be on their ballot...rules that are not included in the 12th. Are they all NON-compliant with the US Constitution. Evan McMullin could only get on the ballots in 11 states because of the rules and nobody was crying to the courts to change them.

And they are all unconstitutional if it was taken to the supreme Court...

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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?

Uhm we don't know could it possibly be the 12th amendment dumb fuck?



No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident ...



That's it the only fucking qualifications..

Well, dumbfuck, every state in the union has rules to be on their ballot...rules that are not included in the 12th. Are they all NON-compliant with the US Constitution. Evan McMullin could only get on the ballots in 11 states because of the rules and nobody was crying to the courts to change them.

And they are all unconstitutional if it was taken to the supreme Court...

And every state still has them, and hundreds of people are kept off state ballots because of them.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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?

Uhm we don't know could it possibly be the 12th amendment dumb fuck?



No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident ...



That's it the only fucking qualifications..

Well, dumbfuck, every state in the union has rules to be on their ballot...rules that are not included in the 12th. Are they all NON-compliant with the US Constitution. Evan McMullin could only get on the ballots in 11 states because of the rules and nobody was crying to the courts to change them.

And they are all unconstitutional if it was taken to the supreme Court...

And every state still has them, and hundreds of people are kept off state ballots because of them.

No one challenged them yet, Jesus it took almost a decade before Chicago's gun ban was ruled unconstitutional.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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

Uhm we don't know could it possibly be the 12th amendment dumb fuck?



No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident ...



That's it the only fucking qualifications..

Well, dumbfuck, every state in the union has rules to be on their ballot...rules that are not included in the 12th. Are they all NON-compliant with the US Constitution. Evan McMullin could only get on the ballots in 11 states because of the rules and nobody was crying to the courts to change them.

And they are all unconstitutional if it was taken to the supreme Court...

And every state still has them, and hundreds of people are kept off state ballots because of them.

No one challenged them yet, Jesus it took almost a decade before Chicago's gun ban was ruled unconstitutional.

Because nobody but mindless drones like you think they are unconstitutional. Nowhere does the Constitution stop states from controlling who can be on their ballot.

 

[iceberg]

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?

Uhm we don't know could it possibly be the 12th amendment dumb fuck?



No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident ...



That's it the only fucking qualifications..

Well, dumbfuck, every state in the union has rules to be on their ballot...rules that are not included in the 12th. Are they all NON-compliant with the US Constitution. Evan McMullin could only get on the ballots in 11 states because of the rules and nobody was crying to the courts to change them.

And they are all unconstitutional if it was taken to the supreme Court...

And every state still has them, and hundreds of people are kept off state ballots because of them.

And the pandoras box they are opening up doing this is going to be pretty bad.

 

[iceberg]

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?

Uhm we don't know could it possibly be the 12th amendment dumb fuck?



No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident ...



That's it the only fucking qualifications..

Well, dumbfuck, every state in the union has rules to be on their ballot...rules that are not included in the 12th. Are they all NON-compliant with the US Constitution. Evan McMullin could only get on the ballots in 11 states because of the rules and nobody was crying to the courts to change them.

And they are all unconstitutional if it was taken to the supreme Court...

How are they unconstitutional?

Please point out the part of the constitution that would prevent this.

 

[pknopp]

Uhm we don't know could it possibly be the 12th amendment dumb fuck?



No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident ...



That's it the only fucking qualifications..

Well, dumbfuck, every state in the union has rules to be on their ballot...rules that are not included in the 12th. Are they all NON-compliant with the US Constitution. Evan McMullin could only get on the ballots in 11 states because of the rules and nobody was crying to the courts to change them.

And they are all unconstitutional if it was taken to the supreme Court...

And every state still has them, and hundreds of people are kept off state ballots because of them.

No one challenged them yet, Jesus it took almost a decade before Chicago's gun ban was ruled unconstitutional.

Because nobody but mindless drones like you think they are unconstitutional. Nowhere does the Constitution stop states from controlling who can be on their ballot.

Can they require your health records?

 

[pknopp]

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?

Uhm we don't know could it possibly be the 12th amendment dumb fuck?



No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident ...



That's it the only fucking qualifications..

Well, dumbfuck, every state in the union has rules to be on their ballot...rules that are not included in the 12th. Are they all NON-compliant with the US Constitution. Evan McMullin could only get on the ballots in 11 states because of the rules and nobody was crying to the courts to change them.

And they are all unconstitutional if it was taken to the supreme Court...

How are they unconstitutional?

Please point out the part of the constitution that would prevent this.

This must be the tenth time I've done this.

Right to Privacy: Constitutional Rights & Privacy Laws

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Well, dumbfuck, every state in the union has rules to be on their ballot...rules that are not included in the 12th. Are they all NON-compliant with the US Constitution. Evan McMullin could only get on the ballots in 11 states because of the rules and nobody was crying to the courts to change them.

And they are all unconstitutional if it was taken to the supreme Court...

And every state still has them, and hundreds of people are kept off state ballots because of them.

No one challenged them yet, Jesus it took almost a decade before Chicago's gun ban was ruled unconstitutional.

Because nobody but mindless drones like you think they are unconstitutional. Nowhere does the Constitution stop states from controlling who can be on their ballot.

Can they require your health records?

I am not sure what they can require, that is for the courts to determine.

I suspect they will not allow this on privacy grounds. Not because of the 12th Amendment