Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
OverSword

CA Law Requires Tax Returns for Candidates

133 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

OverSword
Quote

 

President Donald Trump will be ineligible for California’s primary ballot next year unless he discloses his tax returns under a state law that immediately took effect Tuesday, an unprecedented mandate that is almost certain to spark a high-profile court fight and might encourage other states to adopt their own unconventional rules for presidential candidates.

The law, signed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom on his final day to take action and passed on a strict party-line vote in the Legislature, requires all presidential candidates to submit five years of income tax filings. They must do so by late November in order to secure a spot on California’s presidential primary ballot in March. State elections officials will post the financial documents online, although certain private information must first be redacted.

 

Link

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taun

The last time the media got all worked up about Mr Trumps tax returns, it didn't work out so well for them - just ask Racheal Madow... Turns out he paid a higher percentage (and actual amount) than any Dem candidate did...

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GLCsector3295

Pretty smart on the socialists part to not only force Trump to hand over his Tax records ( which do not matter to any one and is only something the socialists want so they can p*** an whine about something else ) but also get him off the ballot, A few things that the socialists forget, 1, California is a dead to rights leftist state, it hasn't voted for common sense since 1988. an no one ever expects California to vote for a conservative or freedom ever again, conservatives gave up on California as a state to win ages ago.B, there are 49 other states that can still get Trump elected, 3, you can still use that pesky write in candidate section so the 100 conservatives / republicans that actually still live in California can still vote for Trump that way.  The move isn't so much to stop Trump from getting elected, it is just a grab at his taxes. Big whoop. More over, now the State has to contend with counter suits on the matter, so it technically isn't a solid win as of yet.  It is an interesting move no doubt though on their part. Then California gets his taxes, so what ? Oh then I suppose Trump gets back on the ballot ( which wouldnt matter ) and Trump still gets re elected in 2020. Shucks.

  • Like 4
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2

I imagine that law won't survive the Supreme Court. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
3 hours ago, OverSword said:

State law doesn't Trump...ahem...Federal law...nuff said.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pixiii

Can someone tell me what will this achieve short and long term?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS
3 minutes ago, pixiii said:

Can someone tell me what will this achieve short and long term?

They expect Trump to fight it under the claim that his taxes are either unfinished or that he is under audit. Either or both may or may not be true but this has been done solely to fight with Trump. As GLCsector3295 said above, California has been a democrat stronghold for quite some time so why waste their energy on this? Could they be worried? 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
Posted (edited)
59 minutes ago, joc said:

State law doesn't Trump...ahem...Federal law...nuff said.

But I think each state runs their own elections. Federal law trumps state law but is there a law stating candidates for president are not required to release tax returns? I seriously doubt it. 

Mom the other hand can California actually keep the name of the legally elected president off the ballot? Sounds like a stretch.

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
1 hour ago, pixiii said:

Can someone tell me what will this achieve short and long term?

more democrat passion when Trump challenges it. The dems love passion - the hate kind :)

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
55 minutes ago, F3SS said:

California has been a democrat stronghold for quite some time so why waste their energy on this? Could they be worried? 

It's the interest, not the principal. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
Posted (edited)

Leave it to left wing flakes to assume they have the right to dictate the terms of a Federal election.  Don't ya just wanna smas hug them?

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind

I'm not sure why anyone would have a problem with this. There's a reason that it's the standard for Presidential elections. Before Trump decided to go against this standard, I'll bet that not a single person would have anything negative to say about such a law. Shouldn't you have a right to know that your prospective President isn't corrupt?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

So, basically, this means that Trump can be re-elected without the people of California having a chance to vote on him?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pixiii

Thanks to those who explained - With CA primarily being a Democrat State and Trump most likely wouldn't win there anyway...would he? Then why bother with this?  Apart from ensuring the next possible President isn't a crook? 

1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I'm not sure why anyone would have a problem with this. There's a reason that it's the standard for Presidential elections. Before Trump decided to go against this standard, I'll bet that not a single person would have anything negative to say about such a law. Shouldn't you have a right to know that your prospective President isn't corrupt?

I don't have a problem with the law here, however, I am a little surprised at the timing.  Ford and Nixon didn't give their's either I think I read earlier in this thread.  The only difference I can see with Trump is that he's a businessman. The rest of the Presidents didn't have a problem with this afaik.

Were there any other President's that were classified as Businessmen not career Politicians that didn't provide their docs too?  I'm asking out of genuine curiosity as I don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
7 minutes ago, pixiii said:

Ford and Nixon didn't give their's either I think I read earlier in this thread.  The only difference I can see with Trump is that he's a businessman. The rest of the Presidents didn't have a problem with this afaik.

I think it became the standard partly because of Nixon. Most (actually, I believe it's likely all) of the Presidents have had their own businesses separate from politics and Trump's excuse, which the IRS has completely debunked, was that he was/is under audit.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Buzz_Light_Year
3 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I'm not sure why anyone would have a problem with this. There's a reason that it's the standard for Presidential elections. Before Trump decided to go against this standard, I'll bet that not a single person would have anything negative to say about such a law. Shouldn't you have a right to know that your prospective President isn't corrupt?

It's not a requirement in the Constitution to show your Tax records to be eligible for president.

US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

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 within the United States.

Term limit amendment - US Constitution, Amendment XXII, Section 1 - ratified February 27, 1951

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

I fail to see the requirement for Tax Records.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
Just now, Buzz_Light_Year said:

It's not a requirement in the Constitution to show your Tax records to be eligible for president.

US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

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 within the United States.

Term limit amendment - US Constitution, Amendment XXII, Section 1 - ratified February 27, 1951

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

I fail to see the requirement for Tax Records.

No one said it was a requirement of the Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robotic Jew

The hypocrisy of republicans screaming relentlessly FOR YEARS to see Obama's birth certificate and then criticising democrats for wanting to see tax returns is head explodingly ridiculous. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Buzz_Light_Year
5 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

No one said it was a requirement of the Constitution.

Quote

I'm not sure why anyone would have a problem with this.

I was replying to your remark as to why anyone would not have a problem with this.

Bills of attainder are expressly forbidden by the Constitution.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Buzz_Light_Year
3 minutes ago, Robotic Jew said:

The hypocrisy of republicans screaming relentlessly FOR YEARS to see Obama's birth certificate and then criticising democrats for wanting to see tax returns is head explodingly ridiculous. 

And how long did it take for Obama to produce his birth certificate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
4 minutes ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

I was replying to your remark as to why anyone would not have a problem with this.

Bills of attainder are expressly forbidden by the Constitution.

 

Are Californians going to prosecute him for not releasing his tax returns? Will they be accusing him of a crime? Criminally, I think he'll be just fine if he continues to hide them, so I'm not sure how it applies.

They're simply making it a requirement to run for President.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robotic Jew
3 minutes ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

And how long did it take for Obama to produce his birth certificate?

827 Days. Trump is at 922 currently....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss
12 minutes ago, Robotic Jew said:

The hypocrisy of republicans screaming relentlessly FOR YEARS to see Obama's birth certificate and then criticising democrats for wanting to see tax returns is head explodingly ridiculous. 

Being a natrual born citizen of the United States is actually a requirement. They made a fuss over McCain running because he was born on an army base out of the U.S. so whats the difference between asking McCain and asking Obama?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robotic Jew
7 minutes ago, skliss said:

Being a natrual born citizen of the United States is actually a requirement. They made a fuss over McCain running because he was born on an army base out of the U.S. so whats the difference between asking McCain and asking Obama?

Obama wasn't born on a military base....OR in a foreign country....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
3 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I'm not sure why anyone would have a problem with this. There's a reason that it's the standard for Presidential elections. Before Trump decided to go against this standard, I'll bet that not a single person would have anything negative to say about such a law. Shouldn't you have a right to know that your prospective President isn't corrupt?

Wouldn’t the IRS have already been aware if he was and ruined his life years before he ran for president? Think people.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.