Why is Judicial Watch helping Trump hide HIS tax returns?

Jan 2019
6,463
2,415
southeast
No one is forced to run for office.
You are making no sense, but that is the norm for you. Either you don't comprehend or you are unable to read.

Do you think states can put term limits on members of US congress or do you think they can change the age from 35 tro 40? Hell no.
 
May 2019
3,286
3,785
midwest
You are making no sense, but that is the norm for you. Either you don't comprehend or you are unable to read.

Do you think states can put term limits on members of US congress or do you think they can change the age from 35 tro 40? Hell no.
Of course states can't for qualifications as previously pointed out, as you do about age, are specific to the Constitution. However, there is this.
:cool:


Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
 
Likes: charleston2
Jul 2019
1,207
1,057
Atlanta
You are making no sense, but that is the norm for you. Either you don't comprehend or you are unable to read.

Do you think states can put term limits on members of US congress or do you think they can change the age from 35 tro 40? Hell no.
No they can't change the age from 35 to 40 etc. That would be contradicting the Constitution or superseding the Constitution.... and that's NOT the proposal.
 
Likes: the bull59
Jan 2019
6,463
2,415
southeast
No they can't change the age from 35 to 40 etc. That would be contradicting the Constitution or superseding the Constitution.... and that's NOT the proposal.
OMG. you just admitted...you cannot contradict the Constitution. Thank you.
Of course states can't for qualifications as previously pointed out, as you do about age, are specific to the Constitution. However, there is this.
:cool:


Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
A state cannot deny federal rights of US citizens in accordance with Amendment 14
 
Likes: Bronwyn
May 2019
3,286
3,785
midwest
OMG. you just admitted...you cannot contradict the Constitution. Thank you.

A state cannot deny federal rights of US citizens in accordance with Amendment 14
The Fourteenth Amendment does no such thing since citizens don't directly vote for president per the Twelfth Amendment. Again, after your deflection, we're talking about qualifications and that is set out in the Tenth Amendment. Glad to see you want to do away with antiquated Twelfth.
:cool:
 
Jul 2019
1,207
1,057
Atlanta
California enacts law requiring presidential, gubernatorial candidates to submit income tax returns

On July 30, 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom (D) signed into law SB 27, requiring presidential and gubernatorial candidates to file copies of their last five federal income tax returns with the California secretary of state in order to qualify for placement on the primary election ballot. The law was set to take immediate effect.

In a statement, Newsom said, "The disclosure required by this bill will shed light on conflicts of interest, self-dealing, or influence from domestic and foreign business interest. The United States Constitution grants states the authority to determine how their electors are chosen, and California is well within its constitutional right to include this requirement."[31]

Also on July 30, 2019, Republican presidential candidate Roque De La Fuente filed suit against Secretary of State Alex Padilla (D) in federal district court, alleging that SB 27 violated Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Jay Sekulow, an attorney for President Donald Trump (R), also suggested the possibility of further legal action, saying, "The State of California's attempt to circumvent the Constitution will be answered in court."

On August 1, 2019, Judicial Watch, on behalf of four California voters, filed a separate federal suit challenging the law. On August 6, 2019, President Donald Trump (R) and his campaign committee filed another separate suit challenging the law, as did the Republican National Committee and the California Republican Party.[32][33][34][35]

Legal professionals differed in their initial assessment of the legality of SB 27. Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said, "This new law raises some very interesting and novel constitutional issues. Because it is novel, it is hard to know how the courts would go, but there is plenty of reason to think courts will be hostile to California’s requirements."

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, said, "Although most cases dealing with ballot access have involved state and local elections, the constitutional principles are the same: State governments may set conditions for being listed on the ballot so long as they serve important interests and do not discriminate based on wealth or ideology."

Gene Schaerr, a constitutional lawyer who has argued before the Supreme Court of the United States, said, "I see it as a serious problem on both constitutional grounds and especially on policy. You can imagine a host of other disclosures that states might want to adopt. If California could do this, some people would undoubtedly want to know whether candidates have ever been treated for a mental illness or denied insurance."[36][37]

Recent news

Ballot access for presidential candidates - Ballotpedia