Page 6 of 15 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 146
Thanks Tree49Thanks

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

  1. #51
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    30,028
    Thanks
    10932

    From
    on the river
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Urbanek View Post
    One could easily see how "disclosure" rules could be abused. What if a state required a candidate to disclose all their Internet avatars and other aliases so that voters could judge the candidates by what statements they made on the Internet? Would you be okay with a state requiring a candidate to disclose a medical and/or psychiatric exam to determine their fitness for office? What about disclosing a drug test to determine if the candidate used unlawful or controlled substances?
    sealed juvenile records, too.

  2. #52
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    21,744
    Thanks
    3635

    From
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    No, it is not. While the qualifications for president are set forth in the U.S. Constitution, presidential races are all run by the states.
    Yes, it is.

    You're right the presidential races are all run by the states. But notice the emphasis. It's not run by New Jersey.

    One state can't pass a law dictating how other states run their presidential races. That's absurd.
    Last edited by Jeremy; 19th March 2017 at 11:48 AM.

  3. #53
    Member
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    3,416
    Thanks
    981

    From
    TN
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    Release of tax returns would not constitute a "religious test" under Art. VI. Revealing information might be politically disqualifying - i.e., the voters might decide based on that information - but it would not be a legally requirement to hold the office, which is what the religious test clause is about.
    And requiring a driver's license to vote is an indirect poll tax. "We don't require a poll tax, we just require you to pay money for the license" -- the same logic applies, "We don't prohibit adherents of unpopular religions from running for office we just make sure they tell us they're members of those unpopular religions."

  4. #54
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    60,256
    Thanks
    32412

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by publius3 View Post
    How is it not a test? Its a surefire way for the mostly Christian electorate to compel religious disclosure of non-Christian candidates. Besides which it just, independently, violates I Amendment, Establishment Clause, and privacy. Anything where the public can now find out what religion, that's truly problematic.
    But that's a decision made by voters, not by the law in a preemptory way. There's nothing in this that would prevent anyone from holding office because of his religion or non-religion.

    Since when is a legal test subject to the whims of voters? It's either a test at law or its not. Nothing in your argument suggests it is a test at law.

    No one under thirty-five can be president. That's a test. On the other hand there's nothing preventing someone who is constitutionally too young to hold office to be placed on a ballot. We've seen instances where people elected to congress had to wait until their 25th birthday before being sworn in. There's nothing in the Constitution that says someone could be too OLD to hold office, but voters can certainly make that a "test" in their own minds. Voters can make decisions based on anything they like.

  5. #55
    Member
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    3,416
    Thanks
    981

    From
    TN
    I'll look it up but I'm pretty sure the atheists flat out won this issue.

  6. #56
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    60,256
    Thanks
    32412

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by publius3 View Post
    And requiring a driver's license to vote is an indirect poll tax. "We don't require a poll tax, we just require you to pay money for the license" -- the same logic applies, "We don't prohibit adherents of unpopular religions from running for office we just make sure they tell us they're members of those unpopular religions."
    Pretty far afield here, particularly since there is no state that requires a driver license to vote. Wish I had a short video of someone stirring up the mud in a puddle because that's what you're doing here.

    You still haven't shown me how this would constitute a legal test. You're the lawyer...show me where the law defines "test" to mean "information on which voters might base their decisions"?

  7. #57
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    60,256
    Thanks
    32412

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by publius3 View Post
    I'll look it up but I'm pretty sure the atheists flat out won this issue.
    Then you'd have to show how a tax return would define someone as an atheist, and show how that circumstance is directly related to the one we're talking about.

  8. #58
    Member
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    3,416
    Thanks
    981

    From
    TN
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    Then you'd have to show how a tax return would define someone as an atheist, and show how that circumstance is directly related to the one we're talking about.
    The charitable contributuons, in many circumstances, will lead people to deduce, correctly, what your religious affiliation or philosophy, as the case may be, is.

    Medical deductions are going to run this thing up against HIPAA too. Electorate is clearly interested in the health of candidates but that doesn't necessitate disclosure.
    Last edited by publius3; 19th March 2017 at 12:03 PM.
    Thanks from webrockk

  9. #59
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    48,988
    Thanks
    23086

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
    Yes, it is.

    You're right the presidential races are all run by the states. But notice the emphasis. It's not run by New Jersey.

    One state can't pass a law dictating how other states run their presidential races. That's absurd.
    "One state" is doing no such thing. It has no effect on other states' races.

  10. #60
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    48,988
    Thanks
    23086

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by publius3 View Post
    And requiring a driver's license to vote is an indirect poll tax. "We don't require a poll tax, we just require you to pay money for the license" -- the same logic applies, "We don't prohibit adherents of unpopular religions from running for office we just make sure they tell us they're members of those unpopular religions."
    No, it does not apply. They are not the same thing.

Page 6 of 15 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 12th September 2016, 09:38 AM
  2. When will trump release his tax returns?
    By PACE in forum Current Events
    Replies: 92
    Last Post: 23rd August 2016, 02:11 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 13th August 2016, 03:21 PM
  4. Replies: 90
    Last Post: 25th May 2016, 09:13 AM
  5. GOPers: Release Your Tax Returns!
    By Friday13 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 13th February 2016, 01:28 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed