California Passes Law Forcing Trump To Disclose Tax Returns To Appear On Ballot

[halfmileharry]

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/california-pass-law-require-trump-tax-returns-appear-ballot

 

[d.kaufman]

Link doesn't work for me. Just blank screen

 

[DoggyDaddy]

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/california-pass-law-require-trump-tax-returns-appear-ballot

I think (hope) the SCOTUS (if it even made it that far) would agree that it's unconstitutional.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Link doesn't work for me. Just blank screen

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/california-pass-law-require-trump-tax-returns-appear-ballot

Just copied and pasted from where Harry's link took me, and I see it just fine. Weird!

 

[Mgderf]

I just heard a pundit on t.v. say that he could still get around the requirement by simply not appearing on the ballot in California.
Since he has no Republican adversary, he probably won't need the California delegates to secure the Republican nomination.

I think that would be hilarious.

 

[KG1]

I just heard a pundit on t.v. say that he could still get around the requirement by simply not appearing on the ballot in California.
Since he has no Republican adversary, he probably won't need the California delegates to secure the Republican nomination.

I think that would be hilarious.

Yeah it's pretty ridiculous. Trump only has one more term and there won't be a need to primary In Cali. so he can just tell Cali. to shove it. He won't win Cali in the general election either so he has no need to comply with their nonsense at all.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I think (hope) the SCOTUS (if it even made it that far) would agree that it's unconstitutional.

Why would it be unconstitutional?

 

[EvilElmo]

Why would it be unconstitutional?

Because states can't add requirements to be president beyond what the Constitution requires.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Because states can't add requirements to be president beyond what the Constitution requires.

Where is that written? I know for a fact that states require a fee to be placed on the ballot. If what you say is true, why isn't that also verboten?

 

[halfmileharry]

Because states can't add requirements to be president beyond what the Constitution requires.

On this line of thinking....Are states free to determine how many signatures are required to be on the ballot?

 

[indykid]

Since when has commiefornia followed the constitution?

 

[EvilElmo]

Where is that written? I know for a fact that states require a fee to be placed on the ballot. If what you say is true, why isn't that also verboten?

There's already a precedent. Back when term limits for congresscritters fell short (1995) Arkansas tried to put limits on its own critters. It was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court and ruled unconstitutional: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1456.ZO.html

The opinion from Justice Stevens:
"[A]s the Framers recognized, electing representatives to the National Legislature was a new right, arising from the Constitution itself. The Tenth Amendment thus provides no basis for concluding that the States possess reserved power to add qualifications to those that are fixed in the Constitution. Instead, any state power to set the qualifications for membership in Congress must derive not from the reserved powers of state sovereignty, but rather from the delegated powers of national sovereignty. In the absence of any constitutional delegation to the States of power to add qualifications to those enumerated in the Constitution, such a power does not exist."

Besides, if you really want to go down the rabbit hole of whether or not states can add requirements to hold federal office what's to stop another state from passing a law banning Democrat candidates from the ballot, or any other party for that matter? Term limits at least had the veneer of being universally applicable, but the Arkansas law would have affected only people representing the state of Arkansas and it was still ruled unconstitutional. California's new law obviously reaches beyond the confines of the state. Plus, let's not pretend that it's based on anything other than hatred for the current occupant of the White House.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Why would it be unconstitutional?

I think his campaign spokesperson made a good case. I'd like to see what SCOTUS would say.

“The Constitution is clear on the qualifications for someone to serve as president and states cannot add additional requirements on their own,” campaign communications director Tim Murtaugh told the Hill. “The bill also violates the 1st Amendment right of association since California can’t tell political parties which candidates their members can or cannot vote for in a primary election.”

 

[Kutnupe14]

I think his campaign spokesperson made a good case. I'd like to see what SCOTUS would say.

“The Constitution is clear on the qualifications for someone to serve as president and states cannot add additional requirements on their own,” campaign communications director Tim Murtaugh told the Hill. “The bill also violates the 1st Amendment right of association since California can’t tell political parties which candidates their members can or cannot vote for in a primary election.”

The first sentence is both parts fact and opinion.The Constitution IS clear on the qualifications to be president - that is a fact.... the and states cannot add additional requirements part is an opinion. And opinion that, if true, then has been and is repeatedly violated.

 

[HoughMade]

Because states can't add requirements to be president beyond what the Constitution requires.

That's true, but there is an old saw: "all elections are state elections". I'm not so sure that this would qualify as an additional requirement.

 

[BugI02]

A state's ability to apply reasonable deadlines and fees to appear on the ballot can in no way be stretched to encompass such arbitrary and intrusive requirements. That said, if I was Trump I would have Republicans in The House introduce a bill to require ALL candidates for national office to release their tax returns at least three months before standing in any election and then stand back and watch it go down in flames. Then I would hit the Democrats for the hypocrites that they almost certainly are

 

[fullmetaljesus]

While we're at it. Let's see his long form birth certificate as well.

 

[Expat]

While we're at it. Let's see his long form birth certificate as well.

and college transcripts...

 

[Ziggidy]

Wouldn't this be a clear case of voter suppression?

 

[fullmetaljesus]

Wouldn't this be a clear case of voter suppression?

No you need a tax stamp for a suppressor.