Judicial Watch Sues over California Law Requiring Presidential Candidates to Submit Tax Returns

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Will be fun to watch this go through the system.

Agreed....don't states have some say as to who ends up on their ballots?

Not for members of Congress or the President. The Constitution establishes the only requirements for running for those offices.

Well, to split hairs, a state not putting someone on a ballot is not the same as preventing them from running for those offices. Again, splitting hairs, but that's the nature of our judicial system. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.

If your past claims are true, how did you get there being such an incredible dumbass?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It may not make it through the courts, and may be dismissed, because those suing are not harmed??? AND because according to the constitution, aren't States given the power to set the parameters/rules of their own elections???

/——/ So Texas says no pro abortion candidates allowed on the ballot and Progs will be cool with it.

It is Trump who has changed the standard for presidential candidates, by denying us access to his tax returns, that ALL OTHER CANDIDATES have given. And more than most candidates running, he, with his GLOBAL businesses, can be breaking the emoluments clause of the constitution as President.

I do not understand why you and all citizens would NOT WANT TO KNOW and want to see his tax returns, along with all the other candidates running.?
WHY have we made this a standard for 40 some years for presidential candidates? WHY did he lie about it, and tell us he would show them? WHAT is he hiding? What makes him special, and above all other candidates running? Why should he be given this special treatment?

Again, you use the term "standard" because you know it's not a law. In other words, you know it's not required.

It was required, it may not have had a Statute on the books, but it has been part of our vetting process for presidents for 45 years, until the special snowflake, crooked Donald.

YOU on the other hand demanded that Obama supply his birth certificate, which he did provide, while never requiring it from other presidential candidates, when it was never a vetting standard for candidates.

/——/ It’s not required loser - give it up already. BTW Ted BELCH Kennedy never released his returns when he ran. So STFU

Did you mean Ted "Not to be used as a flotation device" Kennedy?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

With the 9th Circuit Court's tendency to create laws unto itself, this lawsuit may stand a chance at that lower level. In their shoes, my ruling would be the federal court has no standing in this situation. In November's presidential election, states choose their members of the Electoral College. The Constitution doesn’t require their electors to vote in accordance with their state's popular vote, nor for the state to even hold an election as means to select their electors.

To get around this ridiculous law, Republicans just need to place a stand-in on the ballot whose electors are Trump supporters. The stand-in can be any citizen in the country that is willing to meet California's silly ballot requirements. I believe a stand-in would have a better chance than Trump to win California anyway. Not that I'm a Trump backer, but I thoroughly enjoy when either Republican or Democrat politicians get too cute and end up screwing themselves.

Court's don't have standing. You mean the federal courts have no subject-matter jurisdiction to rule on a federal election? I think you are decidedly wrong.

I think the court requires California to demonstrate a need for the tax-return requirement that has some relation to advancing the efficient holding of a federal election withing the state of California.

What will be their reasoning?

.

Our presidential election in November doesn't elect anybody to federal office. Voters are selecting a slate of people that in December will go to their state capitals and they'll cast votes for president.

But one important word in the thread's title was omitted that was included in post #1. That word being "primary". Heck, next year all the California Republicans need to do is instead hold a caucus.

We did that here in KY in 2016. Republicans held a caucus instead of a primary. We did it so Rand Paul could be on the ballot for President and Senator.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I can't see how voters wouldn't have standing.

Yes, well that's because you are an idiot with no idea how the law works. Just because you personally don't like something does not give you standing to sue.

Are they voters in California? If so, they would have standing.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I'm not sure this will work because of "standing". It may have to be a candidate that gets disqualified.

Not saying this is fact, just a possibility.

Voters have standing.

No they don't. They haven't been deprived of anything. There has to be a candidate disqualified from running because of the law, and that candidate can sue, but voters don't have a case until a client is disqualified from running for office by his/her failure to comply with the law.

Only a crook or a liar would refuse. The request is not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is Trump's refusal to comply with this request.

What if a retired person living in California, with an income below the threshold required to file a tax return, how would they meet that requirement to provide an income tax return that does not exist?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I'm not sure this will work because of "standing". It may have to be a candidate that gets disqualified.

Not saying this is fact, just a possibility.

Voters have standing.

No they don't. They haven't been deprived of anything. There has to be a candidate disqualified from running because of the law, and that candidate can sue, but voters don't have a case until a client is disqualified from running for office by his/her failure to comply with the law.

Only a crook or a liar would refuse. The request is not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is Trump's refusal to comply with this request.

Privacy is important. Recall, that is what RvW was founded upon.

The issue isn't whether privacy is important or not, it's whether the voters have standing to file the lawsuit. I would say "No they don't", not based on the Constitution, but because no voter has been harmed by this law, because no candidate has been removed from the ballot because of this law.

Unless or until this happens, the voters have no standing, and no case, because the voters have not been harmed. The first thing you have to prove in a lawsuit is that YOU, the Plaintiff, have personally suffered harm because of this law. Since no candidate has been removed from the ballot, no voter has been harmed.

The state is implementing a law that is unconstitutional. That is all. No standing, no harm, or anything else is required.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/——/ So Texas says no pro abortion candidates allowed on the ballot and Progs will be cool with it.

It is Trump who has changed the standard for presidential candidates, by denying us access to his tax returns, that ALL OTHER CANDIDATES have given. And more than most candidates running, he, with his GLOBAL businesses, can be breaking the emoluments clause of the constitution as President.

I do not understand why you and all citizens would NOT WANT TO KNOW and want to see his tax returns, along with all the other candidates running.?
WHY have we made this a standard for 40 some years for presidential candidates? WHY did he lie about it, and tell us he would show them? WHAT is he hiding? What makes him special, and above all other candidates running? Why should he be given this special treatment?

Again, you use the term "standard" because you know it's not a law. In other words, you know it's not required.

It was required, it may not have had a Statute on the books, but it has been part of our vetting process for presidents for 45 years, until the special snowflake, crooked Donald.

YOU on the other hand demanded that Obama supply his birth certificate, which he did provide, while never requiring it from other presidential candidates, when it was never a vetting standard for candidates.

/——/ It’s not required loser - give it up already. BTW Ted BELCH Kennedy never released his returns when he ran. So STFU

Did you mean Ted "Not to be used as a flotation device" Kennedy?

/—-/ Yes, Ted “I’ll cross that bridge when I get to it” Kennedy

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Will be fun to watch this go through the system.

Wanting to know less about who you’re voting for is pretty stupid. No wonder Trump supporters are the ones favoring knowing less.

OK, candy! Drop your drawers and let us check to see if you have on clean underwear! Using your logic, we shouldn't listen to anything you say unless you are "clean".

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It is Trump who has changed the standard for presidential candidates, by denying us access to his tax returns, that ALL OTHER CANDIDATES have given. And more than most candidates running, he, with his GLOBAL businesses, can be breaking the emoluments clause of the constitution as President.

I do not understand why you and all citizens would NOT WANT TO KNOW and want to see his tax returns, along with all the other candidates running.?
WHY have we made this a standard for 40 some years for presidential candidates? WHY did he lie about it, and tell us he would show them? WHAT is he hiding? What makes him special, and above all other candidates running? Why should he be given this special treatment?

Again, you use the term "standard" because you know it's not a law. In other words, you know it's not required.

It was required, it may not have had a Statute on the books, but it has been part of our vetting process for presidents for 45 years, until the special snowflake, crooked Donald.

YOU on the other hand demanded that Obama supply his birth certificate, which he did provide, while never requiring it from other presidential candidates, when it was never a vetting standard for candidates.

/——/ It’s not required loser - give it up already. BTW Ted BELCH Kennedy never released his returns when he ran. So STFU

Did you mean Ted "Not to be used as a flotation device" Kennedy?

/—-/ Ted “I’ll cross that bridge when I get to it” Kennedy

Wouldn't that be "I won't cross that bridge when I get to it"?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I think the Trump supporters are afraid of what they will find out.

You mean the stuff in there that Obama's IRS couldn't find?

My God, the dumbass in you is terminal!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Will be fun to watch this go through the system.

Wanting to know less about who you’re voting for is pretty stupid. No wonder Trump supporters are the ones favoring knowing less.

There is nothing in tax returns that a voter needs to know. Taxes for wealthy people undergo stringent examination by the IRS. Should we also know what kind of condoms he uses too?

Condoms? Why pay money for those tiny things? I just use a plastic bag from a loaf of bread. It fits snugly and you have that wire to tie it off and keep it in place!

 

[danielpalos]

the way to get around having to show your tax returns is to sue Congress - **** the voters


Analysts say most Americans want to see Trump's tax returns

Doesn't matter.

What DOES matter is the Constitution, and statutory compliance with same.

And that is precisely what the State is doing, isn't it? Creating a STATUTE, making it a legal requirement for everyone running... a statutory requirement??

No. The State created a statute that will ultimately found to be NON-compliant with the US Constitution. Thus, the upcoming court-fight.

Which specific part of the US Constitution is it non-compliant with?

Right to Privacy: Constitutional Rights & Privacy Laws

There is no right to privacy in a public office. Oversight requires it.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Voters have standing.

No they don't. They haven't been deprived of anything. There has to be a candidate disqualified from running because of the law, and that candidate can sue, but voters don't have a case until a client is disqualified from running for office by his/her failure to comply with the law.

Only a crook or a liar would refuse. The request is not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is Trump's refusal to comply with this request.

Privacy is important. Recall, that is what RvW was founded upon.

The issue isn't whether privacy is important or not, it's whether the voters have standing to file the lawsuit. I would say "No they don't", not based on the Constitution, but because no voter has been harmed by this law, because no candidate has been removed from the ballot because of this law.

Unless or until this happens, the voters have no standing, and no case, because the voters have not been harmed. The first thing you have to prove in a lawsuit is that YOU, the Plaintiff, have personally suffered harm because of this law. Since no candidate has been removed from the ballot, no voter has been harmed.

You don't know much about our laws, do you?

Cases have been taken to court before anybody is harmed by them. If a law was written in violation of our US Constitution, you can take that to court anytime you desire. You may not have a monetary suit, but you can have the law rescinded.

These Trump haters sure are stupid.

If you go on the thread about the math problem that went viral, the vast majority of people who got it wrong were the board liberals. Of course there were a few conservative dumbasses who slept through math class who got it wrong also.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

the way to get around having to show your tax returns is to sue Congress - **** the voters


Analysts say most Americans want to see Trump's tax returns

Doesn't matter.

What DOES matter is the Constitution, and statutory compliance with same.

And that is precisely what the State is doing, isn't it? Creating a STATUTE, making it a legal requirement for everyone running... a statutory requirement??

No. The State created a statute that will ultimately found to be NON-compliant with the US Constitution. Thus, the upcoming court-fight.

The statute may well be non-compliant with the Constitution, but that's not the basis of the Judicial Watch suit. The JW lawsuit is claiming harm to voters, who won't be able to vote for national candidates who don't comply with the law. Until a candidate is stricken from the ballot for failure to comply with the statute, JW has no case.

That is wrong. It is already ripe. The law passed.

They don't have to wait until the election is over and somebody did not get on the ballot to sue. That would make it immediately moot.

.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Privacy is important. Recall, that is what RvW was founded upon.

The issue isn't whether privacy is important or not, it's whether the voters have standing to file the lawsuit. I would say "No they don't", not based on the Constitution, but because no voter has been harmed by this law, because no candidate has been removed from the ballot because of this law.

Unless or until this happens, the voters have no standing, and no case, because the voters have not been harmed. The first thing you have to prove in a lawsuit is that YOU, the Plaintiff, have personally suffered harm because of this law. Since no candidate has been removed from the ballot, no voter has been harmed.

You don't know much about our laws, do you?

Cases have been taken to court before anybody is harmed by them. If a law was written in violation of our US Constitution, you can take that to court anytime you desire. You may not have a monetary suit, but you can have the law rescinded.

A federal judge in Denver has tossed out a years-old lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights, saying that the plaintiffs did not show they were injured by the law and have no right to sue.

Federal judge tosses lawsuit challenging TABOR saying plaintiffs have no right to sue – The Denver Post

They do have to show harm, but that doesn't mean it must have already occurred.

I don't have to know about specific laws, I only have to know legal principles for this one. "No harm, no foul" is such a basic legal principle that it's an actual cliche.

If you have not been harmed, you have no case.

In the case of the Judicial Watch suit, a candidate would have to be removed from the ballot, for the voter to legitimately claim harm. If all candidates comply with the law and no candidate is ever removed from the ballot, JW will never have a cause of action on behalf of the voters because no voter will have been harmed. Candidates could make a Constiutional claim to privacy but they'd be on shakey grounds. If a candidate is running for President, the voters have a right to know his financial situation, and who he owes money to.

Someone brought up Roe v. Wade, as being a privacy matter, but these two things are quite different. In deciding Roe, the SC decided that the state has no compelling interest in the fetus, such that it would override the Plaintiff's right to privacy, but when a candidate is seeking to run for the highest office in the country, the public does have a compelling interest in knowing about his finances, which could then override the candidate's right to privacy.

The arguments would be interesting.

The problem with Roe v. Wade was that there was nothing in the constitution as a right to privacy, so it could not be overridden.

So, using your logic, the courts would have to wait until after the election were held for there to be harm? That's moronic, because it would invalidate the election completely.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So WTF does that have to do with what I replied to?

What California is doing is adding a requirement to run for President in their state. If you want to change the requirements to run for President, you need to do so with a proposal of a constitutional amendment. You can't just write an additional requirement just for your state. That's what the lawsuit is about.

Beyond that, the law they wrote was specifically aimed towards one candidate. It's no different than if my state created a law that all candidates have to show their original birth certificate when DumBama was running. Or their college transcripts, or how their college was funded.

You seem under impression that our election for president is by popular vote and there's no Electoral College. My stance is that through this legislation California Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot and it aids, not hinders Trump's re-election. .

On election day in November 2020 we are voting for a slate of electors. Our Constitution limits the presidential vote itself to only the 538 folks who will make their selection on the first Monday following the second Wednesday in December 2020. It's my belief that Trump has a better shot at taking those California electoral votes away from the Democrats if that state's Republicans place their slate of electors under the name of a designated hitter rather than Trump himself.

What are California's laws on faithless electors? You forgot to consider that those electors may not be able to change their votes. Also, how would you get the designated hitters name on the ballot since he would not be the party nominee?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

the way to get around having to show your tax returns is to sue Congress - **** the voters


Analysts say most Americans want to see Trump's tax returns

Doesn't matter.

What DOES matter is the Constitution, and statutory compliance with same.

And that is precisely what the State is doing, isn't it? Creating a STATUTE, making it a legal requirement for everyone running... a statutory requirement??

No. The State created a statute that will ultimately found to be NON-compliant with the US Constitution. Thus, the upcoming court-fight.

The statute may well be non-compliant with the Constitution, but that's not the basis of the Judicial Watch suit. The JW lawsuit is claiming harm to voters, who won't be able to vote for national candidates who don't comply with the law. Until a candidate is stricken from the ballot for failure to comply with the statute, JW has no case.

Shut up Canuck! You don't know Jack Schitt about our laws apparently!

 

[my2¢]

So WTF does that have to do with what I replied to?

What California is doing is adding a requirement to run for President in their state. If you want to change the requirements to run for President, you need to do so with a proposal of a constitutional amendment. You can't just write an additional requirement just for your state. That's what the lawsuit is about.

Beyond that, the law they wrote was specifically aimed towards one candidate. It's no different than if my state created a law that all candidates have to show their original birth certificate when DumBama was running. Or their college transcripts, or how their college was funded.

You seem under impression that our election for president is by popular vote and there's no Electoral College. My stance is that through this legislation California Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot and it aids, not hinders Trump's re-election. .

On election day in November 2020 we are voting for a slate of electors. Our Constitution limits the presidential vote itself to only the 538 folks who will make their selection on the first Monday following the second Wednesday in December 2020. It's my belief that Trump has a better shot at taking those California electoral votes away from the Democrats if that state's Republicans place their slate of electors under the name of a designated hitter rather than Trump himself.

What are California's laws on faithless electors? You forgot to consider that those electors may not be able to change their votes. Also, how would you get the designated hitters name on the ballot since he would not be the party nominee?

Yep California is one of those 29 states having a law regarding pledged electors, they possibly could be hit with a fine of say $1000 each. In past there has never been consequences but even in worse case where they'd be force to vote in accordance with the popular vote, a successful day at the polls would deny the Democrats those expected electoral votes.

Getting a name the designated hitter's name on the ballot would be a simple matter of collecting the required number of signatures. Looking at California's 2016 ballot, heck if the Peace and Freedom Party could collect the signatures, Republicans should be able to handle getting the necessary John Hancocks with a snap of the fingers. I think Dennis Rodman would do well in California.

 

[Cellblock2429]

I'm not sure this will work because of "standing". It may have to be a candidate that gets disqualified.

Not saying this is fact, just a possibility.

Voters have standing.

No they don't. They haven't been deprived of anything. There has to be a candidate disqualified from running because of the law, and that candidate can sue, but voters don't have a case until a client is disqualified from running for office by his/her failure to comply with the law.

Only a crook or a liar would refuse. The request is not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is Trump's refusal to comply with this request.

What if a retired person living in California, with an income below the threshold required to file a tax return, how would they meet that requirement to provide an income tax return that does not exist?

/——/ If he/she/it was a democRAT or an illegal, the requirement would be waived out of compassion and fair play.

 

[Dragonlady]

I think the Trump supporters are afraid of what they will find out.

You mean the stuff in there that Obama's IRS couldn't find?

My God, the dumbass in you is terminal!

We don't think there's anything illegal in his taxes, but there will be a lot of information the public needs to know. Trump has been borrowing heavily from the Russians and the Saudis. Trump Hotel Toronto was financed by the Saudi's and the building was sold to a Russian born investor. The Trump Corporation was managing the facility on behalf of the Russian investor when the owner filed for bankruptcy in 2016.

American banks stopped lending to Trump after his four casino bankruptcies in the 1990's. Who Trump owes money to at this point is important, as are the sources of his income, and what his true net worth is as well. Especially considering that Trump is now selling nuclear technologies to the Saudi's, and is lifting sanctions against Russian oligarchs.

I strongly believe that the financial statemens will reveal that Trump isn't worth the billions he claims, and that his net worth is, as Deutches Banke has claims, closer to $300 million, which is what Fred left him in the first place.