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

[Dekster]

I'm not sure this will work because of "standing". It may have to be a candidate that gets disqualified.

Not saying this is fact, just a possibility.

Voters have standing.

That isn't how courts look at it. I don't like when they do this either but right now there hasn't been a single voter stopped from voting for anyone.

That didn't stop them from blocking Trump immigration stuff before it had affected anybody. Trump will never win California anyway. Where this law might run into trouble is California usually has a plethora of kooky people on the ballot. Some of them may not even file taxes. I think the real issue here however will come down to whether a majority party can dictate how a minority party in a state selects its nominee. If the thing stands, don't think for a second Republicans are not going to go after the democratic primary process in red states. They will in a heartbeat. "Candidates must disclose whether or not they have had an abortion" will be the first

Again.......stating that in this particular case I am not sure if the courts will find proper standing is NOT saying I think the law will not be overturned. I do.

Disenfranchising republican voters from being able to vote for the incumbent POTUS is pretty good standing to make a 14th amendment claim. The Section 2 "or in any way abridged, except for...." doesn't included "when the democrats really hate him" and ergo the citizens, one from each party and an independent, are being denied their right to vote freely.

 

[pknopp]

I'm not sure this will work because of "standing". It may have to be a candidate that gets disqualified.

Not saying this is fact, just a possibility.

Voters have standing.

That isn't how courts look at it. I don't like when they do this either but right now there hasn't been a single voter stopped from voting for anyone.

That didn't stop them from blocking Trump immigration stuff before it had affected anybody. Trump will never win California anyway. Where this law might run into trouble is California usually has a plethora of kooky people on the ballot. Some of them may not even file taxes. I think the real issue here however will come down to whether a majority party can dictate how a minority party in a state selects its nominee. If the thing stands, don't think for a second Republicans are not going to go after the democratic primary process in red states. They will in a heartbeat. "Candidates must disclose whether or not they have had an abortion" will be the first

Again.......stating that in this particular case I am not sure if the courts will find proper standing is NOT saying I think the law will not be overturned. I do.

Disenfranchising republican voters from being able to vote for the incumbent POTUS is pretty good standing to make a 14th amendment claim. The Section 2 "or in any way abridged, except for...." doesn't included "when the democrats really hate him" and ergo the citizens, one from each party and an independent, are being denied their right to vote freely.

This has all been covered here over and over and over and over.

 

[Dekster]

Voters have standing.

That isn't how courts look at it. I don't like when they do this either but right now there hasn't been a single voter stopped from voting for anyone.

That didn't stop them from blocking Trump immigration stuff before it had affected anybody. Trump will never win California anyway. Where this law might run into trouble is California usually has a plethora of kooky people on the ballot. Some of them may not even file taxes. I think the real issue here however will come down to whether a majority party can dictate how a minority party in a state selects its nominee. If the thing stands, don't think for a second Republicans are not going to go after the democratic primary process in red states. They will in a heartbeat. "Candidates must disclose whether or not they have had an abortion" will be the first

Again.......stating that in this particular case I am not sure if the courts will find proper standing is NOT saying I think the law will not be overturned. I do.

Disenfranchising republican voters from being able to vote for the incumbent POTUS is pretty good standing to make a 14th amendment claim. The Section 2 "or in any way abridged, except for...." doesn't included "when the democrats really hate him" and ergo the citizens, one from each party and an independent, are being denied their right to vote freely.

This has all been covered here over and over and over and over.

Then you should have learned by now that they will have standing.

 

[danielpalos]

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

But none of those others require a candidate to publicly disclose his Federal Tax Returns which are highly sensitive, private information protected by Federal statute.

No one is being required to run for a public office.

 

[pknopp]

That isn't how courts look at it. I don't like when they do this either but right now there hasn't been a single voter stopped from voting for anyone.

That didn't stop them from blocking Trump immigration stuff before it had affected anybody. Trump will never win California anyway. Where this law might run into trouble is California usually has a plethora of kooky people on the ballot. Some of them may not even file taxes. I think the real issue here however will come down to whether a majority party can dictate how a minority party in a state selects its nominee. If the thing stands, don't think for a second Republicans are not going to go after the democratic primary process in red states. They will in a heartbeat. "Candidates must disclose whether or not they have had an abortion" will be the first

Again.......stating that in this particular case I am not sure if the courts will find proper standing is NOT saying I think the law will not be overturned. I do.

Disenfranchising republican voters from being able to vote for the incumbent POTUS is pretty good standing to make a 14th amendment claim. The Section 2 "or in any way abridged, except for...." doesn't included "when the democrats really hate him" and ergo the citizens, one from each party and an independent, are being denied their right to vote freely.

This has all been covered here over and over and over and over.

Then you should have learned by now that they will have standing.

I never argued that they won't. The question is whether they have it now.

 

[danielpalos]

/—-/ 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

Privacy Concerns don't even enter in to the argument as it is unknown if "The State" would even publish the tax returns. At any rate, California does not have a right to The Tax Filings of a New York State Resident, and neither do they have a right to view or request a Federal Return.

No, it will loose based on it's Unconstitutionality and a State requesting standards and requirements on a Federal Election when Federal Election standards are set at The Federal Level.

This is like a Democrat State asking for a Poll Tax, which they have done before to suppress voting of the poor and minorities.

The sole purpose of The New Law is to attempt to keep a particular candidate off of the ballot in California, when Federal Elections only require a Financial Disclosure for a Candidate to appear on The Ballot in all 50 States and US Territories.

"The sole purpose of The New Law is to attempt to keep a particular candidate off of the ballot in California"

Well that's not true. Not at all. California can't keep trump off the ballot. All he has to do is show his taxes and he's on. Furthermore, California doesn't care if he's on or not -- he has no chance at winning that state anyway.

/---/ I'd like to hear you scream like a stuck pig if Texas banned Pro-abortion candidates from the ballot.

No, what a state like Texas would do is hearing that Candidate A has had a couple abortions in the past, passing a law that requires a candidate to release their medical records.

or, having purely religious laws still on the books so you can "harass guys for getting blow jobs."

 

[Dekster]

That didn't stop them from blocking Trump immigration stuff before it had affected anybody. Trump will never win California anyway. Where this law might run into trouble is California usually has a plethora of kooky people on the ballot. Some of them may not even file taxes. I think the real issue here however will come down to whether a majority party can dictate how a minority party in a state selects its nominee. If the thing stands, don't think for a second Republicans are not going to go after the democratic primary process in red states. They will in a heartbeat. "Candidates must disclose whether or not they have had an abortion" will be the first

Again.......stating that in this particular case I am not sure if the courts will find proper standing is NOT saying I think the law will not be overturned. I do.

Disenfranchising republican voters from being able to vote for the incumbent POTUS is pretty good standing to make a 14th amendment claim. The Section 2 "or in any way abridged, except for...." doesn't included "when the democrats really hate him" and ergo the citizens, one from each party and an independent, are being denied their right to vote freely.

This has all been covered here over and over and over and over.

Then you should have learned by now that they will have standing.

I never argued that they won't. The question is whether they have it now.

No you are confusing the ripeness of the claim with their standing. Since the primary selection process is already underway on the DNC side, it should be clear that the claim is ripe as the injury is imminent.

 

[toobfreak]

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

Oh, so now not only does Trump have to pass a test which was not required 3 years ago or against no other president in history or by any other state and appears nowhere in the Constitution, but after Congress gets hold of them, they must be passed around for every person on the street to see as well?

Lessee: We should have had ten states pass a law three years ago that a candidate be able to walk a straight line, balance on one foot and climb stairs without falling down and next year they should pass a law that the candidate be able to read and recall a list of ten words and recite them back in the correct order pronounced correctly!

I almost hope Trump is excluded on the California ballot so that voters there have no one to vote for other than the democrat and have to write in Trump's name. Not only won't Trump win the state anyway, it would likely piss off so many people that they'll finally come to their senses about the Fascist Left and turn that state around.

 

[Terri4Trump]

like the link in the opening post says -

it's doubtful the court will uphold the requirement ... but, they have upheld the state in other instances.

Judicial Watch is just one of five lawsuits pending. One of the lawsuits is from the Trump organization itself. The law will go down and get overturned

 

[pknopp]

Again.......stating that in this particular case I am not sure if the courts will find proper standing is NOT saying I think the law will not be overturned. I do.

Disenfranchising republican voters from being able to vote for the incumbent POTUS is pretty good standing to make a 14th amendment claim. The Section 2 "or in any way abridged, except for...." doesn't included "when the democrats really hate him" and ergo the citizens, one from each party and an independent, are being denied their right to vote freely.

This has all been covered here over and over and over and over.

Then you should have learned by now that they will have standing.

I never argued that they won't. The question is whether they have it now.

No you are confusing the ripeness of the claim with their standing. Since the primary selection process is already underway on the DNC side, it should be clear that the claim is ripe as the injury is imminent.

Maybe so. Mine was simply a statement that noted I might not be right. Sure has set a lot of people off though for some reason.

 

[Norman]

It's absolutely ridiculous that this TDS temper tantrum made it into law. Shows that it's time to start thinking about separating the state from the rest of America.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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

Privacy Concerns don't even enter in to the argument as it is unknown if "The State" would even publish the tax returns. At any rate, California does not have a right to The Tax Filings of a New York State Resident, and neither do they have a right to view or request a Federal Return.

No, it will loose based on it's Unconstitutionality and a State requesting standards and requirements on a Federal Election when Federal Election standards are set at The Federal Level.

This is like a Democrat State asking for a Poll Tax, which they have done before to suppress voting of the poor and minorities.

The sole purpose of The New Law is to attempt to keep a particular candidate off of the ballot in California, when Federal Elections only require a Financial Disclosure for a Candidate to appear on The Ballot in all 50 States and US Territories.

"The sole purpose of The New Law is to attempt to keep a particular candidate off of the ballot in California"

Well that's not true. Not at all. California can't keep trump off the ballot. All he has to do is show his taxes and he's on. Furthermore, California doesn't care if he's on or not -- he has no chance at winning that state anyway.

/---/ I'd like to hear you scream like a stuck pig if Texas banned Pro-abortion candidates from the ballot.

No, what a state like Texas would do is hearing that Candidate A has had a couple abortions in the past, passing a law that requires a candidate to release their medical records.

or, having purely religious laws still on the books so you can "harass guys for getting blow jobs."

/---/ Yes all that would work to counter Kalifonia's income tax requirement.
DemocRATs up to their old tricks again:
Voter registration
Payment of a poll tax was a prerequisite to the registration for voting in a number of states until 1966. The tax emerged in some states of the United States in the late nineteenth century as part of the Jim Crow laws. After the right to vote was extended to all races by the enactment of the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a number of states enacted poll tax laws as a device for restricting voting rights. The laws often included a grandfather clause, which allowed any adult male whose father or grandfather had voted in a specific year prior to the abolition of slavery to vote without paying the tax.[citation needed] These laws, along with unfairly implemented literacy tests and extra-legal intimidation,[3] achieved the desired effect of disenfranchising African-American and Native American voters, as well as poor whites.

 

[danielpalos]

Privacy Concerns don't even enter in to the argument as it is unknown if "The State" would even publish the tax returns. At any rate, California does not have a right to The Tax Filings of a New York State Resident, and neither do they have a right to view or request a Federal Return.

No, it will loose based on it's Unconstitutionality and a State requesting standards and requirements on a Federal Election when Federal Election standards are set at The Federal Level.

This is like a Democrat State asking for a Poll Tax, which they have done before to suppress voting of the poor and minorities.

The sole purpose of The New Law is to attempt to keep a particular candidate off of the ballot in California, when Federal Elections only require a Financial Disclosure for a Candidate to appear on The Ballot in all 50 States and US Territories.

"The sole purpose of The New Law is to attempt to keep a particular candidate off of the ballot in California"

Well that's not true. Not at all. California can't keep trump off the ballot. All he has to do is show his taxes and he's on. Furthermore, California doesn't care if he's on or not -- he has no chance at winning that state anyway.

/---/ I'd like to hear you scream like a stuck pig if Texas banned Pro-abortion candidates from the ballot.

No, what a state like Texas would do is hearing that Candidate A has had a couple abortions in the past, passing a law that requires a candidate to release their medical records.

or, having purely religious laws still on the books so you can "harass guys for getting blow jobs."

/---/ Yes all that would work to counter Kalifonia's income tax requirement.
DemocRATs up to their old tricks again:
Voter registration
Payment of a poll tax was a prerequisite to the registration for voting in a number of states until 1966. The tax emerged in some states of the United States in the late nineteenth century as part of the Jim Crow laws. After the right to vote was extended to all races by the enactment of the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a number of states enacted poll tax laws as a device for restricting voting rights. The laws often included a grandfather clause, which allowed any adult male whose father or grandfather had voted in a specific year prior to the abolition of slavery to vote without paying the tax.[citation needed] These laws, along with unfairly implemented literacy tests and extra-legal intimidation,[3] achieved the desired effect of disenfranchising African-American and Native American voters, as well as poor whites.

A lack of true Faith in the Wisdom, ordained and established by our Founding Fathers? No wonder we have so many problems.

 

[bripat9643]

/——/ 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

Privacy Concerns don't even enter in to the argument as it is unknown if "The State" would even publish the tax returns. At any rate, California does not have a right to The Tax Filings of a New York State Resident, and neither do they have a right to view or request a Federal Return.

No, it will loose based on it's Unconstitutionality and a State requesting standards and requirements on a Federal Election when Federal Election standards are set at The Federal Level.

This is like a Democrat State asking for a Poll Tax, which they have done before to suppress voting of the poor and minorities.

The sole purpose of The New Law is to attempt to keep a particular candidate off of the ballot in California, when Federal Elections only require a Financial Disclosure for a Candidate to appear on The Ballot in all 50 States and US Territories.

"The sole purpose of The New Law is to attempt to keep a particular candidate off of the ballot in California"

Well that's not true. Not at all. California can't keep trump off the ballot. All he has to do is show his taxes and he's on. Furthermore, California doesn't care if he's on or not -- he has no chance at winning that state anyway.

It is true.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Judicial Watch is simply the legal counsel for the people who are suing, dumbass.

Judicial watch does not represent the people, ya fucking moron. The people have not hired them nor have the people filed suit. And even if the people did, they still don't have standing. A candidate who's name would otherwise appear on the ballot would.

It represents the people who filed this suit, moron. Note: That's exactly what I said. I did not say it represents "THE PEOPLE." That's a deliberate misstatement - a lie, in other words.

Are you actually claiming Trump's name wasn't going to be on the ballot?

 

[bripat9643]

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....

He's not allowed to vote for the candidate of his choice, you fucking moron. I thought you leftwing vermin claimed to believe in democracy.

Fucking moron, any voter can still vote for trump even if his name does not appear on the ballot. You lose again because you're a loser.

His name will not be on the ballot. Case closed . . . unless you're an idiot.

 

[Faun]

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.

Judicial Watch is simply the legal counsel for the people who are suing, dumbass.

Judicial watch does not represent the people, ya fucking moron. The people have not hired them nor have the people filed suit. And even if the people did, they still don't have standing. A candidate who's name would otherwise appear on the ballot would.

It represents the people who filed this suit, moron. Note: That's exactly what I said. I did not say it represents "THE PEOPLE." That's a deliberate misstatement - a lie, in other words.

Are you actually claiming Trump's name wasn't going to be on the ballot?

Fucking moron, the people who filed the suit are not harmed by the law.

 

[Faun]

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....

He's not allowed to vote for the candidate of his choice, you fucking moron. I thought you leftwing vermin claimed to believe in democracy.

Fucking moron, any voter can still vote for trump even if his name does not appear on the ballot. You lose again because you're a loser.

His name will not be on the ballot. Case closed . . . unless you're an idiot.

That's his choice, fucking moron. And even if he chooses not to be on the ballot, that doesn't prevent anyone from voting for him.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Judicial Watch is simply the legal counsel for the people who are suing, dumbass.

Judicial watch does not represent the people, ya fucking moron. The people have not hired them nor have the people filed suit. And even if the people did, they still don't have standing. A candidate who's name would otherwise appear on the ballot would.

It represents the people who filed this suit, moron. Note: That's exactly what I said. I did not say it represents "THE PEOPLE." That's a deliberate misstatement - a lie, in other words.

Are you actually claiming Trump's name wasn't going to be on the ballot?

Fucking moron, the people who filed the suit are not harmed by the law.

Of course they are. Only a certified moron would disagree.

 

[bripat9643]

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....

He's not allowed to vote for the candidate of his choice, you fucking moron. I thought you leftwing vermin claimed to believe in democracy.

Fucking moron, any voter can still vote for trump even if his name does not appear on the ballot. You lose again because you're a loser.

His name will not be on the ballot. Case closed . . . unless you're an idiot.

That's his choice, fucking moron. And even if he chooses not to be on the ballot, that doesn't prevent anyone from voting for him.

That's the kind of choice a mugger gives you when he tells you to hand over your wallet or take a bullet in the stomach. It amazes me how often you Stalinist douchebags use this thug morality to justify your assaults on our freedom.