CA Law Requires Tax Returns for Candidates

[ExpandMyMind]

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

There is nothing lawful that would compel him to do so.  Now suppose he just says "No I'm not releasing my taxes"?  So CA is simply not going to allow the incumbent president and opposition leader to appear on the ballot?  And nothing about that strikes a wrong chord with you?  And this is just a perfectly reasonable little piece of legislation that has nothing specifically to do with trump?  Geeze.

I find his refusal to release his tax returns far more worrying than a law requiring all Presidents to do so, but that's just me.

[+OverSword]

1 minute ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Is he though? That's an extremely debatable topic

IT IS NOT!!!!!   OMG.  Perhaps you don't know how much he's worth but it is certainly in the billions.

[ExpandMyMind]

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

IT IS NOT!!!!!   OMG.  Perhaps you don't know how much he's worth but it is certainly in the billions.

So he's a billionaire then? Prove it.

[Gertdoggy]

Trump did release his financial disclosure. It is broader and doesn't show if he is shady with his taxes but it should have ended the wild conspiracies that he doesn't have any money. 

[+OverSword]

2 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

So he's a billionaire then? Prove it.

It doesn't matter to me.  Should a president be able to prove he can run a large organization?  After all he is going to be in charge of the wealthiest and most dangerous state on the earth.  Seems like that should be of far greater concern. That would have disqualified our last president, but we have no such requirement and therefore no right to demand it. There is not even a bill in congress to enact such a law requiring the president or a candidate share his private tax information with the public. 

[aztek]

5 minutes ago, Gertdoggy said:

Trump did release his financial disclosure. It is broader and doesn't show if he is shady with his taxes but it should have ended the wild conspiracies that he doesn't have any money. 

yet it did not, as you can see above

[RoofGardener]

1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Nothing about it prevents him from running and he, in fact, promised to release his tax returns anyway. Also, it applies to all candidates in all future elections, so it's hardly going to favour one side over the other. It's not like the law is requiring only Republican candidates must release their tax returns.

The fact remains, there is only one reason to not release them: he has something to hide.

The fact is that it is unconstitutional. Debate THAT ! 

[RoofGardener]

1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I find his refusal to release his tax returns far more worrying than a law requiring all Presidents to do so, but that's just me.

You are amazing. 

You find a massive rip in the Constitution, and a precedent for mass disenfranchisement, less worrying than one Presidents tax returns ? (which are irrelevant to his ability to fulfill his office). 

You will rip down the republic, and turn America into a fascist state, if it helps remove President Trump ? 

Truly Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Vladimir is laughing his head off. 

Edited July 31, 2019 by RoofGardener

[aztek]

45 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

You are amazing. 

You find a massive rip in the Constitution, and a precedent for mass disenfranchisement, less worrying than one Presidents tax returns ? (which are irrelevant to his ability to fulfill his office). 

You will rip down the republic, and turn America into a fascist state, if it helps remove President Trump ? 

Truly Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Vladimir is laughing his head off. 

lmao, no he is doing none of that, but i look forward to his  tantrums up until 2024, it should be fun. 

[aztek]

[+and-then]

8 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

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

Yes.  He was elected the first time without the Electoral votes of California so their absence will do him no harm.  Electoral College votes are what elects the president. The only people whose votes would be affected are the citizens in Cali that want to vote for him.  They'd effectively be disenfranchised unless write-ins-were allowed.

[F3SS]

4 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Yes it is hypocritical, but conservative states, like Arizona, *never* passed a law that a presidential candidate had to show his birth certificate before Obama ran for his second term in 2012. Does that put the skullduggery of it all into proper perspective?

I hope so.

There also weren't years of top headlines and investigations into it either. It was a topic for sure but really incomparable in public scale and fervor.

3 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I find his refusal to release his tax returns far more worrying than a law requiring all Presidents to do so, but that's just me.

Well here's novel idea then. How about the voters decide how important the issue is with... their... Vote! If people care that much that's how they'll let it be known. 

[aztek]

not a good idea, voters should continue to have an illusion that they matter.  

[skliss]

7 hours ago, Robotic Jew said:

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

But people had a right to ask about it, it was a valid question.

[+OverSword]

snip

Edited July 31, 2019 by OverSword

[Vorg]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/california-gov-gavin-newsom-signs-bill-require-president/story?id=64661535

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill Tuesday requiring all presidential candidates, including President Donald Trump, to fork over their tax returns if they wish to appear on the state's primary election ballot.

While the law is expected to be challenged, Trump could sidestep its requirement by not competing in the California primary. With little competition for the Republican Party nomination, Trump could still secure the nomination without running in the Golden State.

[lightly]

12 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

   Shouldn't you have a right to know that your prospective President isn't corrupt?

Of course not.  This is America !

[Vorg]

12 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Shouldn't you have a right to know that your prospective President isn't corrupt?

Yes. That is why Hillary isn't President.

[Gwynbleidd]

37 minutes ago, South Alabam said:

Yes. That is why Hillary isn't President.

OMG I almost inhaled my coffee when I read that @South Alabam LOL  

[Agent0range]

7 hours ago, OverSword said:

It doesn't matter to me.  Should a president be able to prove he can run a large organization?  After all he is going to be in charge of the wealthiest and most dangerous state on the earth.  Seems like that should be of far greater concern. That would have disqualified our last president

I mean, wouldn't it disqualify this one too?  Trump has been able to maintain the business that his father started...buying buildings.  That doesn't take a stable genius.  He attempted to venture out in to his own businesses...water, mortgage companies, steaks, CASINOS (how a casino fails, I have no idea), universities, magazines, TV channels, multiple others and every single one failed.  

[Agent0range]

3 hours ago, skliss said:

But people had a right to ask about it, it was a valid question.

If you've ever filled out an SF-50 and had a Top Secret federal background check done on yourself, you would realize that it is not a valid question.  It's an idiotic question that only simple minded people would grasp on to.  Unfortunately, simple minded people aren't few and far between.  But hey, they can be President!

[Agent0range]

4 hours ago, aztek said:

And this right here shows how easily people can be fooled.  You believe Lincoln said this, therefore you post it.  Now, show me an actual source stating that this is a quote from Abraham Lincoln.  I'll save you some time.  It's a fake quote.

[Agent0range]

6 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

The fact is that it is unconstitutional. Debate THAT ! 

What amendment does it violate?

[Golden Duck]

14 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

And this right here shows how easily people can be fooled.  You believe Lincoln said this, therefore you post it.  Now, show me an actual source stating that this is a quote from Abraham Lincoln.  I'll save you some time.  It's a fake quote.

Quote

At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

A. Lincoln

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/lyceum.htm

[Vorg]

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tom-del-beccaro-trump-tax-returns-gavin-newsom-supreme-court-democrats-california

It is interesting to note then when Newsom signed the bill, he said the release of tax returns should be the national standard. However, there already is a national standard. It’s called the Constitution and it contains no such tax return disclosure requirement.

As a legal matter, such a requirement amounts to an unconstitutional substantive requirement that will eventually be struck down by the Supreme Court (if not before). Here’s why.

The Constitution sets forth the qualification to be president.

“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.”

That’s it. Nothing more.

 

The Supreme Court long ago ruled that qualifications for federal office cannot be changed by Congress – let alone the states. They did so in a case that attempted to change the qualifications for someone to run for Congress by the state of Arkansas.

In making its ruling, the Supreme Court, in 1828, held that:

“We reaffirm that the qualifications for service in Congress set forth in the text of the Constitution are ‘fixed,’ at least in the sense that they may not be supplemented by Congress.”

In making that determination, the Supreme Court ruled that and that “the Framers  . . . ‘divested’ States of any power to add qualifications,” and stated that:

“We find it appropriate to take note of the striking unanimity among the courts that have considered the issue. None of the overwhelming array of briefs submitted by the parties and amici has called to our attention even a single case in which a state court or federal court has approved of a State's addition of qualifications for a member of Congress. To the contrary, an impressive number of courts have determined that States lack the authority to add qualifications.”

That is not to say that states can’t require candidates to pay a filing fee or gather a limited number of signatures to make sure only serious candidates get on the ballot. That is permissible. Adding qualifications unrelated to such purpose, however, that amount to a qualifying requirement, are not permissible – which is why former California Governor Jerry Brown thought the tax return law was a bad idea.

Edited August 1, 2019 by South Alabam