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

[pknopp]

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

My argument is that they will not allow it on privacy grounds.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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

My argument is that they will not allow it on privacy grounds.

Yes I know, which is why I have not been arguing with you, we agree on that point

 

[rightwinger]

Trump said he had no problem releasing his taxes once he was no longer under audit. That was over three years ago

Why don’t we get the IRS to confirm whether or not he is still being audited ?

 

[pknopp]

Trump said he had no problem releasing his taxes once he was no longer under audit. That was over three years ago

Why don’t we get the IRS to confirm whether or not he is still being audited ?

Because we all know that was a lie.

 

[rightwinger]

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

My argument is that they will not allow it on privacy grounds.

They do not need to be published in the papers
Congress has a right to see them

 

[Cellblock2429]

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.

/——-/ One big problem: It might not be constitutional for a state to require presidential candidates to release their tax returns in order to get ballot access. The U.S. Supreme Court has previously ruled that neither states nor the federal government can create additional qualifications for congressional representatives or senators, per AP, and various legal experts anticipate that would extend to presidential candidates. The big picture: The state efforts to keep Trump off the 2020 ballot

 

[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.

/——-/ One big problem: It might not be constitutional for a state to require presidential candidates to release their tax returns in order to get ballot access. The U.S. Supreme Court has previously ruled that neither states nor the federal government can create additional qualifications for congressional representatives or senators, per AP, and various legal experts anticipate that would extend to presidential candidates. The big picture: The state efforts to keep Trump off the 2020 ballot

And yet again Evan McMullin was kept off the ballot in 39 stares due to additional requirements from those states.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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.

/——-/ One big problem: It might not be constitutional for a state to require presidential candidates to release their tax returns in order to get ballot access. The U.S. Supreme Court has previously ruled that neither states nor the federal government can create additional qualifications for congressional representatives or senators, per AP, and various legal experts anticipate that would extend to presidential candidates. The big picture: The state efforts to keep Trump off the 2020 ballot

And yet again Evan McMullin was kept off the ballot in 39 stares due to additional requirements from those states.

/——/ McMullin's late entrance into the race caused him to miss several state ballot deadlines,[33]and ultimately he was only able to appear on the ballot in eleven states, with write-in eligibility in many other states.[34 - Wikipedia That’s different from adding new requirements.

 

[WillPower]

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

Think his recurring income from RUSSIA will show up in his tax returns do ya, moron?

 

[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

Think his recurring income from RUSSIA will show up in his tax returns do ya, moron?

/—-/ Libtards who never file returns or just the short form, have no idea how it works. Too funny.

 

[my2¢]

The more conservative nature of the court is one reason I lean towards belief it will take a state rights stance as written in the constitution.

Just weeks ago it ruled against getting involved in the shenanigans involving gerrymandering:

The court ruled 5-4 that "partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts," in an opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts.
US Supreme Court Ruling Effectively Ends Wisconsin Gerrymandering Challenge​

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

/——-/ One big problem: It might not be constitutional for a state to require presidential candidates to release their tax returns in order to get ballot access. The U.S. Supreme Court has previously ruled that neither states nor the federal government can create additional qualifications for congressional representatives or senators, per AP, and various legal experts anticipate that would extend to presidential candidates. The big picture: The state efforts to keep Trump off the 2020 ballot

And yet again Evan McMullin was kept off the ballot in 39 stares due to additional requirements from those states.

/——/ McMullin's late entrance into the race caused him to miss several state ballot deadlines,[33]and ultimately he was only able to appear on the ballot in eleven states, with write-in eligibility in many other states.[34 - Wikipedia That’s different from adding new requirements.

Those are requirements that are not in the Constitution.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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.

/——-/ One big problem: It might not be constitutional for a state to require presidential candidates to release their tax returns in order to get ballot access. The U.S. Supreme Court has previously ruled that neither states nor the federal government can create additional qualifications for congressional representatives or senators, per AP, and various legal experts anticipate that would extend to presidential candidates. The big picture: The state efforts to keep Trump off the 2020 ballot

And yet again Evan McMullin was kept off the ballot in 39 stares due to additional requirements from those states.

/——/ McMullin's late entrance into the race caused him to miss several state ballot deadlines,[33]and ultimately he was only able to appear on the ballot in eleven states, with write-in eligibility in many other states.[34 - Wikipedia That’s different from adding new requirements.

Those are requirements that are not in the Constitution.

/—-/ Missing a deadline for registration is different from adding a new requirement. No one objects to filing deadlines.

 

[Faun]

Will be fun to watch this go through the system.

The problem I see is that the plaintiffs don't seem to have standing. Candidates would have standing, but I can't imagine how a handful of voters would.

I can't see how voters wouldn't have standing. They are the primary interested parties where elections are concerned.

Voters aren't affected by the law -- candidates are. I'm pretty certain a candidate would have to file suit.

You win the award for the dumbest post of the month.

Voters aren't affected? Really?

Aww, you hurt my feelings, ya fucking moron. Try explaining how a voter is harmed by a law that applies to candidates and not them....

 

[Faun]

Will be fun to watch this go through the system.

The problem I see is that the plaintiffs don't seem to have standing. Candidates would have standing, but I can't imagine how a handful of voters would.

I can't see how voters wouldn't have standing. They are the primary interested parties where elections are concerned.

Voters aren't affected by the law -- candidates are. I'm pretty certain a candidate would have to file suit.

HTF can candidates be affected and not the voters?

A candidate does not have to be harmed by this in order to claim it unconstitutional. Judicial Watch is like the ACLU or NAACP. They file suits all the time on behalf of other people or groups of people.

And suits were thrown out against such 3rd party activists who tried to gain access to Obama's birth certificate and school records -- because they didn't have standing. And those people could actually show harm.

You can't sue on behalf of someone else.

 

[Faun]

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.

It still applies equally to all candidates.

 

[Faun]

I think it could go either way with the Court....

Thus, it'll be interesting to watch the case work through the courts....

Good arguments on both sides imo.

It's a bullshit move and will likely require a candidate to initiate a suit, but even then it's going to be difficult to reverse as states already institute restrictions beyond the age and natural birth requirements in the Constitution.

It is amusing though to watch the states' rights advocates rally against states' rights.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

/——-/ One big problem: It might not be constitutional for a state to require presidential candidates to release their tax returns in order to get ballot access. The U.S. Supreme Court has previously ruled that neither states nor the federal government can create additional qualifications for congressional representatives or senators, per AP, and various legal experts anticipate that would extend to presidential candidates. The big picture: The state efforts to keep Trump off the 2020 ballot

And yet again Evan McMullin was kept off the ballot in 39 stares due to additional requirements from those states.

/——/ McMullin's late entrance into the race caused him to miss several state ballot deadlines,[33]and ultimately he was only able to appear on the ballot in eleven states, with write-in eligibility in many other states.[34 - Wikipedia That’s different from adding new requirements.

Those are requirements that are not in the Constitution.

/—-/ Missing a deadline for registration is different from adding a new requirement. No one objects to filing deadlines.

Filing deadlines and signature requirements are additional requirements that are not in the Constitution. And you are right, nobody objects to them....which invalidates your “it is not in the Constitution argument.”

I think this will lose in the courts under privacy concerns, not 12 amendments ones

 

[Lysistrata]

A candidate who refuses to reveal his or her tax returns acts in a suspicious way, as if hiding something. When a person runs for a leadership position, we need to know that this person is honest and trustworthy. Only dishonest people hide. Past presidents have had no trouble observing this tradition. What is wrong with trump?

 

[pknopp]

A candidate who refuses to reveal his or her tax returns acts in a suspicious way, as if hiding something. When a person runs for a leadership position, we need to know that this person is honest and trustworthy. Only dishonest people hide. Past presidents have had no trouble observing this tradition. What is wrong with trump?

Should this not apply to every single candidate?