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

[pknopp]

I've asked this 4-5 times with no answer. So you are saying that a state could require your health records?

They can require a health exam.

Of course that is not the same thing. So the answer would be no, they can't require your health records? That running for office does not negate your right to privacy?

Relevance is key.

Where do we find this exception at?

Common sense?

Nope.

 

[danielpalos]

They can require a health exam.

Of course that is not the same thing. So the answer would be no, they can't require your health records? That running for office does not negate your right to privacy?

Relevance is key.

Where do we find this exception at?

Common sense?

Nope.

States choose who their electors will elect. It is up to the States.

 

[Dragonlady]

I knew that was going to happen. If states can't impose term limits on members of Congress, then they can't require them to submit tax returns. The Petulant Dims believe that just because they whine about something, that means they are going to get it.

Judicial Watch Sues over California Law Requiring Presidential Candidates Appearing on Primary Ballot to Disclose Tax Returns - Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of four California voters to prevent the California secretary of state from implementing a new state law requiring all presidential candidates who wish to appear on California’s primary ballot to publicly disclose their personal tax returns from the past fPoliticsive years ( Jerry Griffin et al. v. Alex Padilla (No. 2:19-cv-01477). The suit alleges that the law unconstitutionally adds a new qualification for candidates for president. Judicial Watch’s clients include a registered Independent, Republican, and Democrat California voter.​

There is no basis for the suit. And every state sets its own election rules

Now stfu

There is a very legitimate basis for the suit, and states don't get to impose conditions on elections for federal office, dingbat. The SC has already ruled on that issue.

I don't disagree with this assessment, but the Judicial Watch suit has nothing to do with imposing conditions on elections for federal office. This suit claims that the statute has harmed voters' rights. And that's why THIS suit will be tossed.

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

All it takes is the 'reasonable prospect' or likelihood that such a law will have such a result, to obtain the necessary injunction preventing its execution.

There is no reasonable prospect that voters will be harmed.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I knew that was going to happen. If states can't impose term limits on members of Congress, then they can't require them to submit tax returns. The Petulant Dims believe that just because they whine about something, that means they are going to get it.

Judicial Watch Sues over California Law Requiring Presidential Candidates Appearing on Primary Ballot to Disclose Tax Returns - Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of four California voters to prevent the California secretary of state from implementing a new state law requiring all presidential candidates who wish to appear on California’s primary ballot to publicly disclose their personal tax returns from the past fPoliticsive years ( Jerry Griffin et al. v. Alex Padilla (No. 2:19-cv-01477). The suit alleges that the law unconstitutionally adds a new qualification for candidates for president. Judicial Watch’s clients include a registered Independent, Republican, and Democrat California voter.​

There is no basis for the suit. And every state sets its own election rules

Now stfu

There is a very legitimate basis for the suit, and states don't get to impose conditions on elections for federal office, dingbat. The SC has already ruled on that issue.

I don't disagree with this assessment, but the Judicial Watch suit has nothing to do with imposing conditions on elections for federal office. This suit claims that the statute has harmed voters' rights. And that's why THIS suit will be tossed.

Maybe the OP one more time:

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of four California voters to prevent the California secretary of state from implementing a new state law requiring all presidential candidates who wish to appear on California’s primary ballot to publicly disclose their personal tax returns from the past fPoliticsive years ( Jerry Griffin et al. v. Alex Padilla (No. 2:19-cv-01477). The suit alleges that the law unconstitutionally adds a new qualification for candidates for president.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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?

Uhm we don't know could it possibly be the 12th amendment dumb ****?



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 ...



That's it the only ******* qualifications..

 

[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?

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.

You don't think out the problem very well, do you?

First, the place holder would have to win the popular vote in an ever increasingly liberal state. Then, each of that person's electors would have to be faithless, and subject themselves to those penalties in order to vote for Trump.

What are the odds?

 

[Faun]

Will be fun to watch this go through the system.

The problem I see is that the plaintiffs don't seem to have standing. Candidates would have standing, but I can't imagine how a handful of voters would.

I can't see how voters wouldn't have standing. They are the primary interested parties where elections are concerned.

Voters aren't affected by the law -- candidates are. I'm pretty certain a candidate would have to file suit.

 

[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!

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.

OK, dumbass! When was the last time you included your credit cards balances on your income taxes? They are called income taxes for a reason. Loans are not income!

You would find nothing of use, and then ***** that someone was covering it up, which is what libtards do!

Also, why do you post such lies without batting an eye? Is that what a libtard considers a talent?

 

[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!

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.

God you're clueless how corporate debt works, it doesn't show up on an individual tax return, it would be on the corporate filings. An individual return is a snapshot for that year alone and doesn't show net worth.

.

As a former bank manager and a corporate law clerk, I am far more conservsant with how corporate debt works than you are Bucko. More importantly, I am also aware of how corporations are structured for high end commercial real estate developers, because I've in charge of maintaining the corporate records for a large multi-national construction company, with over 2000 subsidiary companies, some 200 of which were active at any time. I've also been the manager of the bank with a lead financial stake in a large scale development, and worked for the developer as the law clerk drafting and registering development agreements, debentures, and mortgages. There is no aspect of commercial development that I haven't worked in either as a banker or a law clerk. It was my high level of banking experience that got me my first legal job in a corporate/commerical/real estate law office.

The sources of income are detailed on the tax return, as are the losses he claims. And Trump's net worth will be exposed, which is the most important thing. Has he been lying to the American people about his wealth and his success? Or is he just a lying conman?

You are a colossal dumbass because he is not required to release his corporate returns and individual returns don't show anything you are alleging they do.

You are so full of shit you should take a laxative and end it all.

 

[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!

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.

And you know all this how?

A forty year career in banking, finance and law. As a junior banker, I had to learn to do complex analysis of financial statements and tax return for large scale borrowers, because the manager delegated that work to me.

Yet you have zero experience with American tax law. Congratulations, dumbass!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

And you know all this how?

A forty year career in banking, finance and law.

In other words, you don't know any of that. You're regurgitating leftwing conspiracy theories.

I do know all of it. I have a friend who worked on the crew building Trump Tower in Toronto. It was literally next door to my office at King/Bay/Adelaide Street. He told me that the Saudis were always on site. That Trump supervised construction but the Saudi's signed the cheques:

How every investor lost money on Trump Tower Toronto (but Donald Trump made millions anyway) | The Star

I've watched Trump since the 1970's, and he's made a mess of everything he's ever touched. My favourite quote from the Star:

In the last decade, more than 400 condominium towers of 14 storeys or more have been successfully built in Toronto, according to records at City Hall. Among those, the half-dozen industry insiders and analysts interviewed for this story could identify only one that went bankrupt after completion: the Trump International Hotel and Tower Toronto.

So what? None of that is illegal, now is it?

You are advocating a fishing expedition!

Even a dumbass recognizes when you run out of excuses.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I knew that was going to happen. If states can't impose term limits on members of Congress, then they can't require them to submit tax returns. The Petulant Dims believe that just because they whine about something, that means they are going to get it.

Judicial Watch Sues over California Law Requiring Presidential Candidates Appearing on Primary Ballot to Disclose Tax Returns - Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of four California voters to prevent the California secretary of state from implementing a new state law requiring all presidential candidates who wish to appear on California’s primary ballot to publicly disclose their personal tax returns from the past fPoliticsive years ( Jerry Griffin et al. v. Alex Padilla (No. 2:19-cv-01477). The suit alleges that the law unconstitutionally adds a new qualification for candidates for president. Judicial Watch’s clients include a registered Independent, Republican, and Democrat California voter.​

There is no basis for the suit. And every state sets its own election rules

Now stfu

There is a very legitimate basis for the suit, and states don't get to impose conditions on elections for federal office, dingbat. The SC has already ruled on that issue.

I don't disagree with this assessment, but the Judicial Watch suit has nothing to do with imposing conditions on elections for federal office. This suit claims that the statute has harmed voters' rights. And that's why THIS suit will be tossed.

Don't hold your breath waiting for the end result.

On second thought, please hold your breath. It probably reeks and is destroying the ozone layer!

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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?

Uhm we don't know could it possibly be the 12th amendment dumb ****?



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 ...



That's it the only ******* qualifications..

Well, dumbfuck, every state in the union has rules to be on their ballot...rules that are not included in the 12th. Are they all NON-compliant with the US Constitution. Evan McMullin could only get on the ballots in 11 states because of the rules and nobody was crying to the courts to change them.

 

[bripat9643]

I knew that was going to happen. If states can't impose term limits on members of Congress, then they can't require them to submit tax returns. The Petulant Dims believe that just because they whine about something, that means they are going to get it.

Judicial Watch Sues over California Law Requiring Presidential Candidates Appearing on Primary Ballot to Disclose Tax Returns - Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of four California voters to prevent the California secretary of state from implementing a new state law requiring all presidential candidates who wish to appear on California’s primary ballot to publicly disclose their personal tax returns from the past fPoliticsive years ( Jerry Griffin et al. v. Alex Padilla (No. 2:19-cv-01477). The suit alleges that the law unconstitutionally adds a new qualification for candidates for president. Judicial Watch’s clients include a registered Independent, Republican, and Democrat California voter.​

There is no basis for the suit. And every state sets its own election rules

Now stfu

There is a very legitimate basis for the suit, and states don't get to impose conditions on elections for federal office, dingbat. The SC has already ruled on that issue.

I don't disagree with this assessment, but the Judicial Watch suit has nothing to do with imposing conditions on elections for federal office. This suit claims that the statute has harmed voters' rights. And that's why THIS suit will be tossed.

It claims the law will harm voters rights, you senile dingbat. Your theory that harm must have already occurred is patently false, and numerous posters have already demonstrated that. It won't get tossed. The law will be tossed.

 

[bripat9643]

Will be fun to watch this go through the system.

The problem I see is that the plaintiffs don't seem to have standing. Candidates would have standing, but I can't imagine how a handful of voters would.

I can't see how voters wouldn't have standing. They are the primary interested parties where elections are concerned.

Voters aren't affected by the law -- candidates are. I'm pretty certain a candidate would have to file suit.

You win the award for the dumbest post of the month.

Voters aren't affected? Really?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Will be fun to watch this go through the system.

The problem I see is that the plaintiffs don't seem to have standing. Candidates would have standing, but I can't imagine how a handful of voters would.

I can't see how voters wouldn't have standing. They are the primary interested parties where elections are concerned.

Voters aren't affected by the law -- candidates are. I'm pretty certain a candidate would have to file suit.

HTF can candidates be affected and not the voters?

A candidate does not have to be harmed by this in order to claim it unconstitutional. Judicial Watch is like the ACLU or NAACP. They file suits all the time on behalf of other people or groups of people.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

You don't think out the problem very well, do you?

First, the place holder would have to win the popular vote in an ever increasingly liberal state. Then, each of that person's electors would have to be faithless, and subject themselves to those penalties in order to vote for Trump.

What are the odds?

This law was specifically written for one particular candidate, one particular party, and for one particular election. I don't think they would have gone through all that trouble for one person unless they had something else up their sleeve.

 

[Care4all]

I think it could go either way with the Court....

Thus, it'll be interesting to watch the case work through the courts....

Good arguments on both sides imo.

 

[pknopp]

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?

Uhm we don't know could it possibly be the 12th amendment dumb ****?



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 ...



That's it the only ******* qualifications..

And get 10,000 signatures..........