• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CALIF legislature - no tax returns - no spot on ballot

H

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,954
Reaction score
28,535
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Those who keep saying they support states rights and keep reminding the world that the presidential election is just a series of individual state elections under state law which can change from state to state .... how do you feel about this?

The California legislature has passed legislation going to the Governor for signature which basically says anyone who wants to be on the California ballot for the Office of President MUST release the last five years of their taxes.

Presidential tax returns required under California bill | The Sacramento Bee


Read more here: Presidential tax returns required under California bill | The Sacramento Bee

So, will the right wing defend this states rights issue?
 
Since the eligibility requirements for a candidate for president are established in the Constitution I don't see how this is a state's rights matter.
 

The right wing will be indifferent since it's not Trump who would be affected by this legislation. I think they would be fine with anybody else being forced to release their returns.

For myself, I support this legislation.
 
Cardinal said:
The right wing will be indifferent since it's not Trump who would be affected by this legislation. I think they would be fine with anybody else being forced to release their returns.

For myself, I support this legislation.
Click to expand...

It's a stupid law that will get overturned by SCOTUS the first time it gets challenged. This is a state trying to amend the Constitution, so it's clearly exceeding CA's authority.
 
faithful_servant said:
It's a stupid law that will get overturned by SCOTUS the first time it gets challenged. This is a state trying to amend the Constitution, so it's clearly exceeding CA's authority.
Click to expand...

How is it trying to amend the constitution?
 
Would it be so bad if California decides it doesn't want to vote for the next President?
 

Would this mean Californians couldn't vote to prevent some horrible candidat, because the only one that could beat her didn't want to show how much taxes they paid? This is not to say that I don't think tax returns should not be checked and stored with a generalized description made public. But this could be a real shot in their own collective foot done the way it sounds.
 

Seems reasonable to me.

California will NEVER vote for a Republican.

This law only demands that the candidates on the California Ballot release their returns. This pretty much exactly what the framers were driving at.

Whether the Democrat in the race garners 60% or 100% of the ballots cast, he still wins the state's electors and nothing more.

The Republican can lose California and still win the Electoral College. The Democrat needs California to win.

This is a law that will not have the desired effect.

Just like most California ideas it's an empty, "feel good" fluff of nothing.
 
Cardinal said:
How is it trying to amend the constitution?
Click to expand...

35, 14 year resident, natural born citizen. That's it.

You can even be a felon. Can California refuse the felons?
 
jimbo said:
35, 14 year resident, natural born citizen. That's it.

You can even be a felon. Can California refuse the felons?
Click to expand...

And a state must accept those. But are they not free to decide what other terms must be met for their own election?
 
faithful_servant said:
It's a stupid law that will get overturned by SCOTUS the first time it gets challenged. This is a state trying to amend the Constitution, so it's clearly exceeding CA's authority.
Click to expand...

Article 2, Section 2 allows that every state be in control of the manner by which the electors be selected.

This seems to me, a not too legally educated guy on the next bar stool, perfectly in line with the demands of the Constitution.
 
jimbo said:
35, 14 year resident, natural born citizen. That's it.

You can even be a felon. Can California refuse the felons?
Click to expand...

Are those requirements, or are those the only requirements? And what is the exact wording? In other words, does the Constitution ban further requirements? Honest question.
 


I remember when politicians wanted bills requiring the presidential candidate to show their birth certificates. It goes to show that when the fringe on the right does something against the president the fringe on the left return the favor.
 
haymarket said:
And a state must accept those. But are they not free to decide what other terms must be met for their own election?
Click to expand...

Good question and one that SCOTUS would have to decide should it come to that.

But there are already federal laws governing federal elections. Date of voting for one. The three Constitutional biggies. So my gut feeling is California will lose.

But not all candidates meet the requirements to be placed on the ballot in all states, so there is that.
 
jamesrage said:
I remember when politicians wanted bills requiring the presidential candidate to show their birth certificates. It goes to show that when the fringe on the right does something against the president the fringe on the left return the favor.
Click to expand...

So is that why you are against it? Tit for tat? One knee jerk response to what is perceived as another? Or do you have any principles apart from that?
 

And people on the right keep telling me there IS NO SUCH THING AS A FEDERAL ELECTION FOR PRESIDENT. Its all state elections.
 
It is just amazing how many idiots there are out there that think there would be any information on a tax return that would be useful in choosing a President.

Does California not know that every Presidential candidate files a financial declaration with the government to be eligible to run?
 
Cardinal said:
Are those requirements, or are those the only requirements? And what is the exact wording? In other words, does the Constitution ban further requirements? Honest question.
Click to expand...

Like I wrote Haymarket in post 14. Good question.
 
haymarket said:
And people on the right keep telling me there IS NO SUCH THING AS A FEDERAL ELECTION FOR PRESIDENT. Its all state elections.
Click to expand...

There is a federal election for President. Just no popular vote for President.

At one time states selected their electoral electors any way they chose. Some had no vote at all. State legislators made the pick.

SCOTUS here we come.
 
jimbo said:
Like I wrote Haymarket in post 14. Good question.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Per the exact wording:

"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 am not by any stretch of the imagination a Constitutional scholar, but it seems to me, and I could be wrong, that while these requirements limit the field of applicable candidates, it doesn't say that these are the only requirements. What I'm missing is god-knows-what other rulings have been made since then that would act as precedent for future legislation.

So I'll just say that, Constitutionally allowing, I support California's legislation.
 
This would probably pass muster for any local or state election activities but as it imposes extra constitutional requirements, unlikely to stand for federal election candidates.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
VanceMack said:
This would probably pass muster for any local or state election activities but as it imposes extra constitutional requirements, unlikely to stand for federal election candidates.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Again, though, Vance, states already have requirements to be placed on their ballot, and have for decades. There has been no backlash.
 

If the state of CA decided that candidates were "too old" to be placed on the ballot after reaching Medicare eligibility age would that be a state right as well? The constitution defines some requirements for being POTUS (e.g. not too young) but does that mean that they are also the only requirements to be listed on the ballot? Obviously not, because states do require other (extra-constitutional?) conditions to be met to have a candidate's name appear on their ballots.

The issue that I have is that one only has to file a return with IRS in order to get a refund or to pay taxes assumed due on income that others have reported to the IRS that they had paid you. The IRS is not apt to chase you down if your withholding has exceeded your anticipated taxes due. I filed no federal income tax returns for years when a state had a judgement against me and would take any federal income tax refund due me - since it was no longer coming to me I just decided to just let the federal government keep it.

Does this also mean that simply having no taxable income makes you ineligible to run for POTUS in CA? This will likely make it to the SCOTUS on 4A grounds (privacy?) and maybe on 14A grounds (only candidates for the office of POTUS in CA need to "tell all").
 
jimbo said:
There is a federal election for President. Just no popular vote for President.

At one time states selected their electoral electors any way they chose. Some had no vote at all. State legislators made the pick.

SCOTUS here we come.
Click to expand...

That is not what the righties tell me. They claim there is no national election for President ... that it is all in the hands of individual states who make their own rules.

Seems now they will argue the other side when this one bites them in the other cheek.
 

The qualification should be one that all candidates can meet who can fulfill the three basics. Age would not be proper as it would exclude many people who are powerless to comply. The release of ones tax returns on the other hand, is within the power of the candidate and only they can exclude themselves by NOT doing it.

Does this also mean that simply having no taxable income makes you ineligible to run for POTUS in CA?
Click to expand...

I imagine they would simply have to verify that to meet the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…