Why is Judicial Watch helping Trump hide HIS tax returns?

Jul 2019
1,208
1,057
Atlanta
So if more states pass an unconstitutional act then somehow it has sound legal reasoning? You keep ignoring the actual legal point.



The questions are pretty clear. If you want tax returns to look for crimes and people don't admit to or leave evidence of crimes in their tax returns then you are sort of full of crap.
What is unconstitutional about filing requirements?
 
Likes: the bull59
May 2013
18,304
17,684
Boise, ID
So if more states pass an unconstitutional act then somehow it has sound legal reasoning? You keep ignoring the actual legal point.

The questions are pretty clear. If you want tax returns to look for crimes and people don't admit to or leave evidence of crimes in their tax returns then you are sort of full of crap.
Agree the LAW is VERY clear - What is it about "SHALL FURNISH" that you don't understand?

26 U.S.C. § 6103 - U.S. Code Title 26. Internal Revenue Code § 6103 | FindLaw
 
Likes: the bull59
Jan 2012
957
320
SoCal
What is unconstitutional about filing requirements?
Let's hit it from a couple different sources....

Op-Ed: Why Trump will win his challenge to California's tax return law

But the law runs smack into the Constitution’s protections for political parties and federal elections. The 1st Amendment guarantees the freedom to form political parties that function independently of the government. Allowing California to restrict who can appear on primary ballots interferes with the right of the parties to choose their leaders. The Constitution also prohibits states from effectively creating new qualifications for federal offices.


So again to help you in this discussion... the state government can't tell a party how to pick their leaders. Again you'd understand this with any other right. Freedom of speech... well not without your tax returns... freedom to get an abortion.... well not without your tax returns.

Additionally the area referenced, Article 2, makes this an exclusively federal domain. We are talking about federal offices. So as an example if California wanted to declare Trump couldn't run for governor of the state without tax returns, they can do that. President... no.

Although seemingly nonpartisan, the California ballot law plainly disrupts Republicans’ associational rights. As a unanimous Supreme Court observed in 2008, a political party has the right “to choose a candidate-selection process that will in its view produce the nominee who best represents its political platform.” By denying California Republicans the ability to vote for President Trump in their own primary, the state is obviously abridging their right to decide whether Trump “best represents [the Republican] political platform.”


This is pretty self-evident and again you'd understand it if reversed. If Red States were passing laws that made it so Democratic Parties couldn't pick their preferred candidate a the federal level, you'd understand the problem.

In 2017, Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a similar bill. In his veto statement, he said: “Today we require tax returns, but what would be next?” If the Court allowed California’s law to stand, other states could demand a list of private information as the price for access to the ballot. States could require that candidates release their birth certificates; medical and mental health records; academic transcripts; criminal records; divorce and family status; and gun licenses, not just taxes.

States could demand even more private information. Have candidates had an abortion? What are their religious beliefs? States could focus these requirements to knock out particular candidates. Alabama could target Joe Biden by requiring disclosure of family business dealings with China.

To be sure, states have some power to manage access to the ballot. They generally decide the location of polling places, paper versus electronic ballots and the formatting of ballots. But in 1995, the Supreme Court made very clear that there are limits to state power. U.S. Term Limits vs. Thornton involved an Arkansas law that limited how many terms congressional representatives and senators could serve. The court held that states cannot add new “qualifications” to the constitutional minimums for office. California’s law clearly adds another qualification to running for president.

Again very clear reasoning. Gov Brown is hardly a Republican hack and he could see the problem with this overly partisan and frankly nutty attempt to get the Trump tax records. Just let your mind wander into whatever craziness you could imagine a Red State imposing on a Democratic candidate and just realize the Constitution is the only standard here. We don't want to live in country where Texas can ask Harris if she ever had an abortion or Beto if he ever was treated for a STD.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...t-trumps-tax-returns-wont-work/?noredirect=on

If only it were so straightforward. The constitutional provision to which Newsom alludes — Article II, section 1, clause 3 — does say that each state has the authority to determine how its “electors” (meaning its representatives in the electoral college) are selected. But that provision is irrelevant to the new California law because the Article II clause applies to the general election, not to party primaries.

Any doubt about that point was resolved by the Supreme Court in a case called Cousins v. Wigoda, which involved a struggle between two groups of delegates seeking to represent Illinois at the 1972 Democratic National Convention. The dispute had pitted a slate of unpledged delegates associated with the powerful Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley against a block of delegates led by the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who supported Sen. George McGovern of South Dakota. The national party seated the Jackson-McGovern group, but an Illinois court sided with the Daley delegates.

The Supreme Court told the Illinois courts, in effect, to butt out. “The States themselves have no constitutionally mandated role in the great task of the selection of Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates,” Justice William Brennan wrote for the majority. Choosing a party’s presidential nominee, according to Brennan, is “a task of supreme importance to every citizen of the Nation regardless of their State of residence.” Allowing each state to enforce its own laws “without regard to party policy” could “seriously undercut or indeed destroy the effectiveness” of party conventions for selecting candidates, the court concluded.


The author basically spends a bit of time noting the Pyrrhic victories or outcomes that might occur but to most reasonable people. This isn't even close.
 
Likes: roberthughey
May 2007
4,941
2,556
your place
What is unconstitutional about filing requirements?

I am sure you understand the concept that the filing requirements must be reasonable and not an invasion of privacy. You would obviously agree that there are some things that it would not be reasonable to require. Also, if it is determined by the courts that it is partisan harassment, then that won’t fly in court.

There is no law or precedent that says that releasing private tax returns is a requirement to run for federal office. The fact that Democrats want to use his tax information to hurt Trump politically is not going to work in their favor.
 
May 2019
3,286
3,785
midwest
Who is the crook and conman? Clinton ran on the ballot, didn't she? Did you forget how she failed to report donations to her beloved Clinton Foundation and did so after getting caught. You folks are the ones always screaming about denying Americans the right to vote. And one more thing and will ask again which states passed this besides Ca.? I am sure you must have an answer. You stated 3.
You're standard fall back --- but but Clinton. You really are triggered.
:cool: