Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 146
Thanks Tree49Thanks

Thread: New Jersey passes bill forcing presidential candidates to release tax returns

  1. #21
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    30,025
    Thanks
    10934

    From
    on the river
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    Does making a donation to a religious organization disqualify them for the ballot? That would be a religious test. The fact that history records the religious affiliation of every president suggests that this argument is nonsense.
    No, not systematically, but it might disqualify them in the court of public opinion. If a presidential candidate wishes to keep their religiosity between themselves and their god, shouldn't that fall under 4th Amendment protections? If they claim charitable deductions to a specific faith's organizations, forcing the release of tax returns may 'out' them without their consent.

  2. #22
    A Character Tennyson's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,380
    Thanks
    302

    From
    Barsoom
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    I agree that it wouldn't work as a qualification for the presidency. It would work as a national law. But states are allowed to make their own rules about BALLOTS since they run their own elections. There is no such thing as a national election--there are only state elections. And just as states can create qualifications like getting a certain number of signatures, setting deadlines for paperwork, etc., they an set requirements for disclosure.

    It's an interesting question, but if states weren't able to set their own requirements for getting on a ballot, all the other requirements would be challengeable as well--I don't think they are.
    The states administer the federal elections, which are procedural in nature, not the qualifications or eligibility to run for federal office. Signatures, deadlines, paperwork are procedural. These are equal to the deadlines for the Electoral College dates of December 19, 2016, December 13, 2016, December 19, 2016, December 28, 2016, January 3, 2017, and January 6, 2017.

    When states have tampered with a constitutional federal election qualification, they have lost at the Supreme Court. John Paul Steven wrote the opinion for U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995) and Cook v. Gralike (2001).

    U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995):

    The Framers further revealed their concerns about congressional abuse of power when Gouverneur Morris suggested modifying the proposal of the Committee of Detail to grant Congress unfettered power to add qualifications. We noted that Hugh Williamson "expressed concern that if a majority of the legislature should happen to be `composed of any particular description of men, of lawyers for example,. . . the future elections might be secured to their own body.' " Id. , at 535, quoting 2 Farrand 250. We noted, too, that Madison emphasized the British Parliament's attempts to regulate qualifications, and that he observed: "`[T]he abuse they had made of it was a lesson worthy of our attention.' " 395 U. S., at 535, quoting 2 Farrand 250. We found significant that the Convention rejected both Morris' modification and the Committee's proposal.

    Cook v. Gralike (2001):

    We disagree. To be sure, the Elections Clause grants to the States "broad power" to prescribe the procedural mechanisms for holding congressional elections. Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U. S. 208, 217 (1986); see also Smiley v. Holm, 285 U. S. 355, 366 (1932) ("It cannot be doubted that these comprehensive words embrace authority to provide a complete code for congressional elections"). Nevertheless, Article VIII falls outside of that grant of authority. As we made clear in U. S. Term Limits, "the Framers understood the Elections Clause as a grant of authority to issue procedural regulations, and not as a source of power to dictate electoral outcomes, to favor or disfavor a class of candidates, or to evade important constitutional restraints." 514 U. S., at 833-834. Article VIII is not a procedural regulation. It does not regulate the time of elections; it does not regulate the place of elections; nor, we believe, does it regulate the manner of elections.[18] As to the last point, Article VIII bears no relation to the "manner" of elections as we understand it, for in our commonsense view that term encompasses matters like "notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt 524*524 practices, counting of votes, duties of inspectors and canvassers, and making and publication of election returns." Smiley, 285 U. S., at 366; see also U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U. S., at 833. In short, Article VIII is not among "the numerous requirements as to procedure and safeguards which experience shows are necessary in order to enforce the fundamental right involved," Smiley, 285 U. S., at 366, ensuring that elections are "fair and honest," and that "some sort of order, rather than chaos, is to accompany the democratic process," Storer v. Brown, 415 U. S. 724, 730 (1974).
    Thanks from Robert Urbanek and pragmatic

  3. #23
    quichierbichen
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    61,316
    Thanks
    33168

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by publius3 View Post
    Historical voluntary disclosure has no bearing on compulsory statutory disclosure of something extremely likely to reveal soebody's religious affiliation.
    You haven't answered my question: how is this a "religious test"? How does "religious test" get defined as a public disclosure? Maybe there's something in the case law about this? It seems to me that the "religious test" provision would prevent us from saying "The president must be a Presbyterian" or "The president may not be a Catholic" or "the president must believe in God." Simply asking him to reveal his private financial dealings to the public in the same way he is required to reveal them to the government doesn't qualify as a "test." Is there something in the law to suggest my interpretation of this is wrong?

  4. #24
    quichierbichen
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    61,316
    Thanks
    33168

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Tennyson View Post
    The states administer the federal elections, which are procedural in nature, not the qualifications or eligibility to run for federal office. Signatures, deadlines, paperwork are procedural. These are equal to the deadlines for the Electoral College dates of December 19, 2016, December 13, 2016, December 19, 2016, December 28, 2016, January 3, 2017, and January 6, 2017.

    When states have tampered with a constitutional federal election qualification, they have lost at the Supreme Court. John Paul Steven wrote the opinion for U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995) and Cook v. Gralike (2001).

    U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995):
    The Framers further revealed their concerns about congressional abuse of power when Gouverneur Morris suggested modifying the proposal of the Committee of Detail to grant Congress unfettered power to add qualifications. We noted that Hugh Williamson "expressed concern that if a majority of the legislature should happen to be `composed of any particular description of men, of lawyers for example,. . . the future elections might be secured to their own body.' " Id. , at 535, quoting 2 Farrand 250. We noted, too, that Madison emphasized the British Parliament's attempts to regulate qualifications, and that he observed: "`[T]he abuse they had made of it was a lesson worthy of our attention.' " 395 U. S., at 535, quoting 2 Farrand 250. We found significant that the Convention rejected both Morris' modification and the Committee's proposal.

    Cook v. Gralike (2001):
    We disagree. To be sure, the Elections Clause grants to the States "broad power" to prescribe the procedural mechanisms for holding congressional elections. Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U. S. 208, 217 (1986); see also Smiley v. Holm, 285 U. S. 355, 366 (1932) ("It cannot be doubted that these comprehensive words embrace authority to provide a complete code for congressional elections"). Nevertheless, Article VIII falls outside of that grant of authority. As we made clear in U. S. Term Limits, "the Framers understood the Elections Clause as a grant of authority to issue procedural regulations, and not as a source of power to dictate electoral outcomes, to favor or disfavor a class of candidates, or to evade important constitutional restraints." 514 U. S., at 833-834. Article VIII is not a procedural regulation. It does not regulate the time of elections; it does not regulate the place of elections; nor, we believe, does it regulate the manner of elections.[18] As to the last point, Article VIII bears no relation to the "manner" of elections as we understand it, for in our commonsense view that term encompasses matters like "notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt 524*524 practices, counting of votes, duties of inspectors and canvassers, and making and publication of election returns." Smiley, 285 U. S., at 366; see also U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U. S., at 833. In short, Article VIII is not among "the numerous requirements as to procedure and safeguards which experience shows are necessary in order to enforce the fundamental right involved," Smiley, 285 U. S., at 366, ensuring that elections are "fair and honest," and that "some sort of order, rather than chaos, is to accompany the democratic process," Storer v. Brown, 415 U. S. 724, 730 (1974).
    How is revealing his/her tax returns a "qualification?" It's just something he or she needs to do to get on the ballot, like collecting signatures. It's not like only some people file tax returns--everyone has a tax status. It's not like anyone in the country would be disqualified from office because they don't have a tax status to report.
    Thanks from Friday13

  5. #25
    A Character Tennyson's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,380
    Thanks
    302

    From
    Barsoom
    Quote Originally Posted by DemoWhip View Post
    And that is one thing. However, don't the states have a say on whom they put in their own state's ballot? They should, otherwise, let the states acquiesce to the federal government in ALL things and lose their own state's rights. Republicans surely can agree with that.
    There is no constitutional power over how states choose their intrastate candidates, and the states have pretty much plenary power of how they choose their electors. States do not have any power to make federal candidate qualifications laws.

  6. #26
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    30,357
    Thanks
    81

    From
    Tennessee
    Quote Originally Posted by DemoWhip View Post
    That is a very good bill for New Jersey to have passed! ALL Presidential and V.P. Candidates should release their tax returns as N.J. and other states have determined. The states obviously have it right in this regard. If Trump plans to run again he'd better start getting his tax returns in order or not be able to get on in several states.









    ----------------------------------------

    New Jersey passes bill forcing presidential candidates to release tax returns | TheHill
    By Brooke Seipel



    they have no right!!

  7. #27
    quichierbichen
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    61,316
    Thanks
    33168

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by webrockk View Post
    No, not systematically, but it might disqualify them in the court of public opinion.
    So what? How is that a "religious test?:
    If a presidential candidate wishes to keep their religiosity between themselves and their god, shouldn't that fall under 4th Amendment protections?
    Those protections against unreasonable searches and seizures protect people in private life, and were meant to protect people against impositions into their private affairs.
    If they claim charitable deductions to a specific faith's organizations, forcing the release of tax returns may 'out' them without their consent.
    But if they seek public office, they give that consent. Public officials and those who hope to become public officials get fewer protections than do private citizens.

  8. #28
    quichierbichen
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    61,316
    Thanks
    33168

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Tennyson View Post
    There is no constitutional power over how states choose their intrastate candidates, and the states have pretty much plenary power of how they choose their electors. States do not have any power to make federal candidate qualifications laws.
    I don't see how this law does that.

  9. #29
    Member
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    3,500
    Thanks
    990

    From
    TN
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    You haven't answered my question: how is this a "religious test"? How does "religious test" get defined as a public disclosure? Maybe there's something in the case law about this? It seems to me that the "religious test" provision would prevent us from saying "The president must be a Presbyterian" or "The president may not be a Catholic" or "the president must believe in God." Simply asking him to reveal his private financial dealings to the public in the same way he is required to reveal them to the government doesn't qualify as a "test." Is there something in the law to suggest my interpretation of this is wrong?
    Because if the majority Christian electorate compels public disclosure of candidates' religious beliefs, they are potentially smoking out the religuous minority from successful candidacies. Muslims may agree.

    Historical disclosure of Presidential religious affiliations is the norm, "Look at me, I'm a piois member of the majority religion."

    Maybe the tax returns don't show any contributions, theb perhaps he or she may not be a 'good enough' Christian.
    Last edited by publius3; 19th March 2017 at 12:16 PM.

  10. #30
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    30,025
    Thanks
    10934

    From
    on the river
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    So what? How is that a "religious test?: Those protections against unreasonable searches and seizures protect people in private life, and were meant to protect people against impositions into their private affairs. But if they seek public office, they give that consent. Public officials and those who hope to become public officials get fewer protections than do private citizens.
    Should a closeted homosexual candidate be systematically 'outed' without their consent?

Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 12th September 2016, 10:38 AM
  2. When will trump release his tax returns?
    By PACE in forum Current Events
    Replies: 92
    Last Post: 23rd August 2016, 03:11 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 13th August 2016, 04:21 PM
  4. Replies: 90
    Last Post: 25th May 2016, 10:13 AM
  5. GOPers: Release Your Tax Returns!
    By Friday13 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 13th February 2016, 02:28 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed