California governor signs bill requiring Trump release his tax returns to appear on ballot

[Right_in_Virginia]

California’s pathetic attempt to troll Trump
NY Post, Jul 31, 2019, Editorial Board

Why let a little thing like the US Constitution get in the way of a dig at President Trump? That’s the attitude of the Democrats who run the Golden State.

No joke: California Gov. Gavin Newsom just signed a law Tuesday that aims to bar Trump’s name from the state’s primary ballot unless he releases his tax returns for the past five years, which Trump refuses to. Several other states, including New York and New Jersey, have eyed similar bills.

Dems pushing such laws see them as a win-win: If the president releases his returns, they can mine them for evidence, however weak, to justify new witch hunts and calls for impeachment. If not, they keep him off the ballot, harming his re-election chances.

Except that it’s almost surely unconstitutional — as then-Gov. Jerry Brown, a lifelong Democrat, noted when he vetoed a similar bill in 2017: “A qualified candidate’s ability to appear on the ballot is fundamental” to democracy, he noted. Banning candidates is what nations like Russia and Iran do.

“Today we require tax returns, but what would be next? Five years of health records? A certified birth certificate?” Brown asked. “And will these requirements vary depending on which political party is in power?”

The Constitution spells out requirements — a minimum age (35), US citizenship and 14 years of US residency — for presidents. And the Supreme Court has ruled, regarding congressional term limits, that states can’t set requirements for federal ballots beyond what’s in the Constitution.

So all California has done is set up Trump for yet another victory — this time, in court.

https://nypost.com/2019/07/31/californias-pathetic-attempt-to-troll-trump/

[thackney]

...“Today we require tax returns, but what would be next? Five years of health records? A certified birth certificate?” Brown asked. “And will these requirements vary depending on which political party is in power?”

The Constitution spells out requirements — a minimum age (35), US citizenship and 14 years of US residency — for presidents. And the Supreme Court has ruled, regarding congressional term limits, that states can’t set requirements for federal ballots beyond what’s in the Constitution....

That part actually should be a requirement, since it is not just citizenship that is required.

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.

ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 5

https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/82/presidential-eligibility

[Bigun]

What part of the Constitution would California be amending?

Article II.  It doesn't say a damned thing about any tax returns.

[DCPatriot]

@Bill Cipher

Noticed that you asked the question in another thread...regarding "what part of the Constitution" protects DJT.   

[Bill Cipher]

Article II.  It doesn't say a damned thing about any tax returns.

It also doesn’t say anything about requiring a minimum number of in-state signatures before your name can appear on the ballot; are those requirements unconstitutional?  It also doesn’t say anything about political parties; does that make it unconstitutional to limit a primary ballot only to those people who are members of a recognized political party?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Why is it patently unconstitutional?

I'd say that it violates the Supremacy Clause.  It is illegal to leak someone's IRS returns.  For a state government to make disclosure of those returns mandatory directly undermines that federal policy.  States could take any number of federal protections guaranteed to citizens, and make waiver of those protections a requirement for anything from drivers licenses, to voting, to owning property in the state.  So, I'd say something that has the effect of overriding explicit federal protections is unconstitutional.

[Bill Cipher]

I'd say that it violates the Supremacy Clause.  It is illegal to leak someone's IRS returns.  For a state government to make disclosure of those returns mandatory directly undermines that federal policy.  States could take any number of federal protections guaranteed to citizens, and make waiver of those protections a requirement for anything from drivers licenses, to voting, to owning property in the state.  So, I'd say something that has the effect of overriding explicit federal protections is unconstitutional.

Don’t buy the argument.  The disclosure is voluntary:  if you want to be on a primary ballot, then disclose.  If you don’t want to disclose, then don’t try to get on the primary.  You can still, however, be nominated and show up on the actual ballot for the general election. 

It doesn’t violate the supremacy clause. 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Don’t buy the argument.  The disclosure is voluntary:  if you want to be on a primary ballot, then disclose.  If you don’t want to disclose, then don’t try to get on the primary.  You can still, however, be nominated and show up on the actual ballot for the general election. 

It doesn’t violate the supremacy clause.

Okay, then how about if as a condition of appearing on the ballot, you have to give up any firearms you own, consent to have your house and car searched at any time, for any reason or no reason, sign over to the government of the state the right to receive your future Social Security checks, and pledge not to join a church?

It's all voluntary - Right? 

[Bill Cipher]

Okay, then how about if as a condition of appearing on the ballot, you have to give up any firearms you own, consent to have your house and car searched at any time, for any reason or no reason, sign over to the government of the state the right to receive your future Social Security checks, and pledge not to join a church?

It's all voluntary - Right? 

Not equivalent.  Disclosing information is not the same as giving up an asset.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Not equivalent.  Disclosing information is not the same as giving up an asset.

You can't be serious.  Information is power and power, last time I checked, is the ultimate asset.  If you're uncomfortable with this, replace "power" with "advantage".

Come on, counselor, stop trying to prove you can dance on the head of a pin.  It's becoming tedious.

This is going to the Supreme Court where it will be struck down.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Not equivalent.  Disclosing information is not the same as giving up an asset.

They're legally equivalent if they're both giving up federally protected rights.

[DCPatriot]

You can't be serious.  Information is power and power, last time I checked, is the ultimate asset.  If you're uncomfortable with this, replace "power" with "advantage".

Come on, counselor, stop trying to prove you can dance on the head of a pin.  It's becoming tedious.

This is going to the Supreme Court where it will be struck down.

@Right_in_Virginia

At least you didn't call him 'Shirley'.

He's not the only member who seemingly enjoys playing the Contrarian...  but in fact, I enjoy it if it's going to stimulate the thinking.

[Right_in_Virginia]

@Right_in_Virginia

At least you didn't call him 'Shirley'.

He's not the only member who seemingly enjoys playing the Contrarian...  but in fact, I enjoy it if it's going to stimulate the thinking.

"Shirley" ... that could work.   

   @DCPatriot

[Cyber Liberty]

@Right_in_Virginia

At least you didn't call him 'Shirley'.

He's not the only member who seemingly enjoys playing the Contrarian...  but in fact, I enjoy it if it's going to stimulate the thinking.

Having been one at one point in a previous life, I am generally sympathetic to the Contrarians.  I get into fights with them, but I Shirley hope they understand that I want them to stay, for the reason you state in the end.  I am one with the owner on this.

(Almost.  I'm a cat person, she's a dog person. )

 

[Fishrrman]

Cyber wrote:
"Having been one at one point in a previous life, I am generally sympathetic to the Contrarians."

Nope.
Not me.
I put 'em on ignore, and Cipher has been there quite a while.

They might be mere "contrarians".
But I sense some are actually paid operatives "from the other side".