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

135 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Agent0range
11 minutes ago, South Alabam said:

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.

A law to be put on the ballot in a state does not change the requirements to be President.  Being left off the ballot doesn't mean you can't be written in.  So, how exactly is this a constitution issue?  

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle
3 hours ago, skliss said:

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

It's called vetting and is a requirement according to the Constitution. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
6 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

Ummm...the quote is still not in there.  "But he said something like that!" is not a quote.  

I know.  I gave you the quote.  The qraphic included a paraphrase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Agent0range said:

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.  

I think he borrowed money from his father and started his own not running his fathers right? Also that is a much larger business now than when it started right? Hotels and office buildings all over the world? I don't know I’m not a fan of his personally. I don’t mean to defend him but when snowflake leftists think it’s okay to trample the constitution just to get him or when they just say stupid **** regardless of common sense I feel compelled to inject my limited version of logic into the conversation. I mean come on, if Obama had not released his tax information would CA have done this? No way. It’s pure TDS, and it’s main result is making democrats look insane and authoritarian.

edited because my phone keeps ghost screening 

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
1 hour 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.

Snopes says it’s paraphrased from one of his speeches 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lincoln-destroyed-from-outside/

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
12 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

No one said it was a requirement of the Constitution.

Then it is a moot point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

California is over run with Socialists, Communists, Tyrannical Wannabes.  It's pathetic.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robotic Jew
4 hours ago, skliss said:

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

And questions about trumps tax returns are valid as well. Actually probably more so since it's not based soley on his race.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa

About a hundred years ago after the Teapot Dome scandal, a law was passed to permit Congress to demand tax returns from the president and others.  It is not a request it is a law.  So far the President has not complied.   The reason for the law is to assure that the President or a Cabinet member will not act against the United States for personal interest. 

So far he has not complied.  Is there a reason for that   behavior that also makes you feel good about democracy or a representative republic still being viable?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
4 hours ago, South Alabam said:

Yes. That is why Hillary isn't President.

So far, I thought there was an investigation that decided not to bring charges.   Doesn't that sound like total exoneration? Hillary must not be a crook by today's standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
1 hour ago, Robotic Jew said:

And questions about trumps tax returns are valid as well. Actually probably more so since it's not based soley on his race.

Oh yes, the race card. If I remember the question of his eligibility became an issue after his paternal Grandmother said she was in the hospital room in Kenya when he was born. 

Oh and by the way I saw your confused or sad emoji when I laughingly brought up the birth certificate earlier. It was a joke ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
36 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

About a hundred years ago after the Teapot Dome scandal, a law was passed to permit Congress to demand tax returns from the president and others.  It is not a request it is a law.  So far the President has not complied.   The reason for the law is to assure that the President or a Cabinet member will not act against the United States for personal interest. 

So far he has not complied.  Is there a reason for that   behavior that also makes you feel good about democracy or a representative republic still being viable?

Never heard of this. Interesting arguments and admittedly legitimate imo as to why the records haven’t been turned over https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/05/10/us/politics/trump-tax-returns-subpoena.amp.html

The argument is that legitimate concern that the executive branch are using their political position to illegally profit from government resources must be demonstrated, and that the current request is for the purpose of creating political weaponry against the administration which honestly this seems like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
2 hours ago, Agent0range said:

Ummm...the quote is still not in there.  "But he said something like that!" is not a quote.  

Seriously? You’re arguing about a paraphrased meme? :lol: wow 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Agent0range said:

A law to be put on the ballot in a state does not change the requirements to be President.  Being left off the ballot doesn't mean you can't be written in.  So, how exactly is this a constitution issue?  

Because states can only have say in who can appear on the presidential ballot if they’re running as independents if I read the requirements correctly.

edit: I may not have read it correctly. If the states requirements do not violate constitutional requirements it’s possible this is legal. Seems stupid that a state could prevent an incumbent president from a major political party off the ballot. TDS for sure  

Edited by OverSword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

I think this and similar laws may be shut down possibly by arguing that states should not have de facto access to federal tax information on individuals without their consent or possibly using the logic of sanctuary states, the federal government is not obligated to use its resources to do the bidding of the states

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
37 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Never heard of this. Interesting arguments and admittedly legitimate imo as to why the records haven’t been turned over https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/05/10/us/politics/trump-tax-returns-subpoena.amp.html

The argument is that legitimate concern that the executive branch are using their political position to illegally profit from government resources must be demonstrated, and that the current request is for the purpose of creating political weaponry against the administration which honestly this seems like.

Is it considered political weaponry to investigate an administration that does their utmost to keep financial entanglements under the radar?  That is the Teapot Dome.   Cabinet members and others who benefit from government position by making personal fortunes, (Elaine Chao comes to mind as well as Zinke and others) might bring some suspicion to the administration. Dipping a little close to the emoluments clause or campaign finance laws might raise an honest eyebrow or two as well. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
11 minutes ago, OverSword said:

I think this and similar laws may be shut down possibly by arguing that states should not have de facto access to federal tax information on individuals without their consent or possibly using the logic of sanctuary states, the federal government is not obligated to use its resources to do the bidding of the states

True.  Are the states responsible to provide finance, manpower, and location for federal elections, or does the federal government pay for that?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
9 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Is it considered political weaponry to investigate an administration that does their utmost to keep financial entanglements under the radar?  That is the Teapot Dome.   Cabinet members and others who benefit from government position by making personal fortunes, (Elaine Chao comes to mind as well as Zinke and others) might bring some suspicion to the administration. Dipping a little close to the emoluments clause or campaign finance laws might raise an honest eyebrow or two as well. 

 

I think it would have to reasonably be shown that federal resources are being illegally used. Maybe read my link or refresh yourself on the teapot dome scandal. Someone in the administration was leasing out military fuel dumps to corporations for unreasonably low prices in exchange for pay or rather bribes. Using that to have the IRS hand over tax returns going back three years before the election is plainly partisan warfare and strictly political 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
15 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

True.  Are the states responsible to provide finance, manpower, and location for federal elections, or does the federal government pay for that?

Do the states want to participate in federal elections? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
7 hours ago, Agent0range said:

What amendment does it violate?

It doesn't violate an Amendment. It actually falls foul - potentially - of  the core constitution. Article 1, section 4, the Elections Clause. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

About a hundred years ago after the Teapot Dome scandal, a law was passed to permit Congress to demand tax returns from the president and others.  It is not a request it is a law.  So far the President has not complied.   The reason for the law is to assure that the President or a Cabinet member will not act against the United States for personal interest. 

So far he has not complied.  Is there a reason for that   behavior that also makes you feel good about democracy or a representative republic still being viable?

That's true. It is currently enshrined in IRS Code section 6103(f). Trump is required to give his tax returns to Congress for study in a closed session... if Congress request them. 

OK.. here's a question.. HAS congress requested them ? I mean officially, under the terms of this law ? 

*Edit* .. oh.. yes.. they have. The chair of the Ways and Means committee has formally requested them. The Treasury refused by saying that there was no "legitimate legislative purpose" for such a disclosure. But title 6103 is pretty specific; it doesn't REQUIRE there to be a "legitimate legislative purpose".. it just says.. "thou shall hand them over". 

So the Chair of the Ways and Means committee is now going to law to force the Treasury to hand them over ! 

.. which means that Trumps tax WILL be disclosed... at least to the Committee (and in closed session), and under conditions of secrecy.  Which means that the democrats on that committee will immediately leak them to the newspapers for political gain.

Which means that the new Californian law about tax returns - which will be struck down by the courts anyway - will be satisfied, and people in California can vote for Trump. Or not.  

Edited by RoofGardener

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
Posted (edited)
11 hours 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.

says a fake cop and a fake veteran lmao, get lost dude, i really could not care less of your opinion

Edited by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
5 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

That's true. It is currently enshrined in IRS Code section 6103(f). Trump is required to give his tax returns to Congress for study in a closed session... if Congress request them. 

OK.. here's a question.. HAS congress requested them ? I mean officially, under the terms of this law ? 

*Edit* .. oh.. yes.. they have. The chair of the Ways and Means committee has formally requested them. The Treasury refused by saying that there was no "legitimate legislative purpose" for such a disclosure. But title 6103 is pretty specific; it doesn't REQUIRE there to be a "legitimate legislative purpose".. it just says.. "thou shall hand them over". 

So the Chair of the Ways and Means committee is now going to law to force the Treasury to hand them over ! 

.. which means that Trumps tax WILL be disclosed... at least to the Committee (and in closed session), and under conditions of secrecy.  Which means that the democrats on that committee will immediately leak them to the newspapers for political gain.

Which means that the new Californian law about tax returns - which will be struck down by the courts anyway - will be satisfied, and people in California can vote for Trump. Or not.  

If the administration lawyers argue that the only reason this information is subpoenaed is a partisan attempt to undermine the administration, which it clearly is, the court will probably rule in favor of trump unless the ways and means committee can demonstrate there is reasonable suspicion that the executive branch is illegally using government resources for profit.   

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.