Page 1 of 15 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 146
Thanks Tree49Thanks

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

  1. #1
    THE PUNDIT DemoWhip's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    6,816
    Thanks
    3911

    From
    In Your Heart!

    Exclamation New Jersey passes bill forcing presidential candidates to release tax returns

    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

    "New Jersey lawmakers this week passed legislation that would force any presidential and vice-presidential candidates to disclose their federal tax returns in order to appear on the state's ballots starting in 2020, the Wall Street Journal reported Friday."
    "State legislators across the country have started debating new measures that would require candidates running for president to publicly disclose their tax returns to qualify for the ballot."
    "New Mexico, Hawaii, Oregon and California are pursuing similar bills."
    Thanks from Dragonfly5, Friday13 and Devil505

  2. #2
    A Character Tennyson's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,378
    Thanks
    302

    From
    Barsoom
    I do not think this law will withstand a constitutional challenge. The qualifications to run for President are governed by the Constitution, not the states. Article II:

    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.

  3. #3
    The Covfefe are Coming! BitterPill's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    7,156
    Thanks
    4684

    From
    SoCal
    Quote Originally Posted by Tennyson View Post
    I do not think this law will withstand a constitutional challenge. The qualifications to run for President are governed by the Constitution, not the states. Article II:

    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.
    Yeah.

  4. #4
    quichierbichen
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    61,206
    Thanks
    33089

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Tennyson View Post
    I do not think this law will withstand a constitutional challenge. The qualifications to run for President are governed by the Constitution, not the states. Article II:

    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.
    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.
    Thanks from Amelia, Friday13 and boontito

  5. #5
    THE PUNDIT DemoWhip's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    6,816
    Thanks
    3911

    From
    In Your Heart!
    Quote Originally Posted by Tennyson View Post
    I do not think this law will withstand a constitutional challenge. The qualifications to run for President are governed by the Constitution, not the states. Article II:

    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.
    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.

  6. #6
    Member
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    3,498
    Thanks
    989

    From
    TN
    As applied it could indirectly violate the federal prohibition against there being 'no religious test' because most tax returns, charitable contributions, will tend to reveal the taxpayers religious affiliation by inference which most candidates seem to want to reveal anyway, but which some may not.

    Medical issues, relevant to voters, but clearly subject to privacy, could also be a problem since those can be deducted.

    Agreed upon, non-court ordered, alimony could also be an issue if the parties to the divorce agreed not to dislose the amounts.
    Last edited by publius3; 19th March 2017 at 11:34 AM.

  7. #7
    quichierbichen
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    61,206
    Thanks
    33089

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by publius3 View Post
    As applied it could indirectly violate the federal prohibition against there being 'no religious test' because most tax returns, charitable contributions, will tend to reveal the taxpayers religious affiliation by inference which most candidates seem to want to reveal anyway, but which some may not.
    How is that a religious test? There's no place on the form where the tax payer reveals his religion and there's no prohibition (and thus no test) against any religious affiliation or non-affiliation in the law.

    That sounds like BS to me.
    Thanks from Dragonfly5 and Devil505

  8. #8
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    30,025
    Thanks
    10934

    From
    on the river
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    How is that a religious test? There's no place on the form where the tax payer reveals his religion and there's no prohibition (and thus no test) against any religious affiliation or non-affiliation in the law.

    That sounds like BS to me.
    Tax deductible donations to a religious organization.
    Thanks from publius3

  9. #9
    Veteran Member DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    31,215
    Thanks
    26399

    From
    SWUSA
    Quote Originally Posted by Tennyson View Post
    I do not think this law will withstand a constitutional challenge. The qualifications to run for President are governed by the Constitution, not the states. Article II:

    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.
    There is nothing in the article that precludes any other requirements. The Article's requirements are the basic requirements needed.

    There is no provision in the article that even requires a candidate have a birth certificate.

    New Jersey can stipulate whom can run in their state process. NJ just can not deny a person that meet the basic Constitutional provisions from running.

    So long as the provision is applied equitably, there is no violation of any right. Running for President is a privilege and not a right. States can regulate privileges.
    Last edited by DebateDrone; 19th March 2017 at 11:40 AM.

  10. #10
    told you so Amelia's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    43,958
    Thanks
    25457

    From
    Wisconsin
    Quote Originally Posted by publius3 View Post
    As applied it could indirectly violate the federal prohibition against there being 'no religious test' because most tax returns, charitable contributions, will tend to reveal the taxpayers religious affiliation by inference which most candidates seem to want to reveal anyway, but which some may not.

    Medical issues, relevant to voters, but clearly subject to privacy, could also be a problem since those can be deducted.

    Agreed upon, non-court ordered, alimony could also be an issue if the parties to the divorce agreed not to dislose the amounts.


    Good point.

    However, the "right to privacy" isn't in the Constitution -- as those against the Roe v. Wade ruling occasionally remind us -- so I wonder how a Trump appointee would rule on this.

Page 1 of 15 12311 ... 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