Illinois Senate To Trump: Show Your Tax Returns Or Be Barred From The 2020 Ballot

[Hamish Howl]

Those are national recognized and published requirements to be in accordance with voting laws. Not individual mandates for candidate information.

The law concerning taxes in Illinois applies to all candidates.

 

[Condor060]

But it's not a qualification requirement. It's a disclosure requirement. Your examples are qualifications.

US Constitution, Amendment XIV Rights Guaranteed

The Equal Protection Clause applies to state specification of qualifications for elective and appointive office. Although one may “have no right” to be elected or appointed to an office, all persons “do have a federal constitutional right to be considered for public service without the burden of invidiously discriminatory disqualification. The State may not deny to some the privilege of holding public office that it extends to others on the basis of distinctions that violate federal constitutional guarantees.

Allowing individual states to adopt their own qualifications for congressional service would be inconsistent with a uniform national legislature representing the people of the United States, If the qualifications set forth in the text of the Constitution are to be changed, that text must be amended.”
Justice John Paul Stevens

If a state can disqualify Presidential candidates for office for anything they want, where does that stop. Each state could have a different qualifier.

If this was viable, it would be just as viable for a President to set new term limits himself. None of these proposed bills will ever pass through and receive the required votes in the senate to become a law. You are changing a constitutional amendment, not some state controlled law.

 

[Condor060]

The law concerning taxes in Illinois applies to all candidates.

I don't catch your meaning. The laws concerning taxes in all states applies to all candidates.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Nothing is being seized. If he doesn't want to produce the papers, he just won't be on the ballot.

There is no legal requirement of any kind that presidential candidates release tax returns from any year. Indeed, there is a strict, strong constitutional right to privacy for all tax returns. Thus, tax returns can be released by an individual taxpayer, but cannot released by the IRS to the public. I like my rights and I like my privacy. I hope Trump continues to fight for our right to privacy. I am tired of the democrats making a mockery of our bill of rights.

 

[Hamish Howl]

There is no legal requirement of any kind that presidential candidates release tax returns from any year. Indeed, there is a strict, strong constitutional right to privacy for all tax returns. Thus, tax returns can be released by an individual taxpayer, but cannot released by the IRS to the public. I like my rights and I like my privacy. I hope Trump continues to fight for our right to privacy. I am tired of the democrats making a mockery of our bill of rights.

There seems to be now.

Again, in Illinois, he can choose to release them or choose to not be on the ballot. The IRS isn't even involved.

 

[lurchadams]

Gee, I don't know. Maybe we should demand tax returns from ALL politicians. And then anal exams following that. Can you imagine what we could find out about the Klinton Crime Family? Or Creepy Uncle Joe "Bite Me" and how much money he got from the ChiComs? Or even San Fran Nan? Notice how the nutjob left are the only ones asking of GOP'ers while not asking their fellow nutjobs for their returns?

You guys make women seeking legal abortions undergo unnecessary, invasive vaginal exams. What's good for the gander is good for the goose.

 

[Athanasius68]

No, it would apply to all presidential candidates, now and in the future.

I dont know that it will get by the courts. We shall see.

Nobody will fall for that line.
Everyone knows is about Trump.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

There seems to be now.

Again, in Illinois, he can choose to release them or choose to not be on the ballot. The IRS isn't even involved.

It is the supreme court that decides if our rights are to be taken away by mob rule. What is it with the democrats and the constant attack on our constitutional rights. They cry about Russian interference and yet they want to take away our rights like they support Stalin type governments.

 

[Frigidweirdo]

They should just man up and eliminate everyone they don’t like from the ballot and show the electorate who really runs things.

Surely ALL candidates have to meet these requirements. It's hardly eliminating people. He can choose to run or not run.

 

[beefheart]

Conservatives are all for state's rights...until they aren't....

 

[OscarLevant]

Agreed, but on the point the principles are not the same. One is about maintaining the integrity of open American elections and one isn’t.

I don't see how placing a requirement to be on a ballot equals harming the integrity of open elections, so I'm not seeing you point.

 

[OscarLevant]

US Constitution, Amendment XIV Rights Guaranteed

The Equal Protection Clause applies to state specification of qualifications for elective and appointive office. Although one may “have no right” to be elected or appointed to an office, all persons “do have a federal constitutional right to be considered for public service without the burden of invidiously discriminatory disqualification. The State may not deny to some the privilege of holding public office that it extends to others on the basis of distinctions that violate federal constitutional guarantees.

Allowing individual states to adopt their own qualifications for congressional service would be inconsistent with a uniform national legislature representing the people of the United States, If the qualifications set forth in the text of the Constitution are to be changed, that text must be amended.”
Justice John Paul Stevens

If a state can disqualify Presidential candidates for office for anything they want, where does that stop. Each state could have a different qualifier.

If this was viable, it would be just as viable for a President to set new term limits himself. None of these proposed bills will ever pass through and receive the required votes in the senate to become a law. You are changing a constitutional amendment, not some state controlled law.

The Illinois law doesn't violate that clause. There is no 'invidiously discriminatory" anything in the Illinois law.

the law doesn't affect congress, nor does it stipulate "qualifications" for presidency, just a paperwork application requirement to be on the ballot.

 

[OscarLevant]

Nobody will fall for that line.
Everyone knows is about Trump.

Many laws come into being because of a circumstance that gives rise to it.

Trump gave rise to it, because before Trump, no one believed any new president would want to hide his taxes.

The law is brought into being by Trump, but will apply to all future presidents, therefore.

Not buying your argument, that it is, per se, "about Trump".

 

[Irwin Corey]

To my knowledge, a presidential candidate is under no obligation to show their tax returns. I may be mistaken. If there is no law requiring one to do so, if I were DJT, I'd tell them to screw themselves and file a lawsuit/restraining order.

It's just another kook left harassment ploy on their part.

They’re making it the law, Constitutionally it’s left up to the States to manage their elections.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Please give the exact citation in the constitution that supports your argument.

Otherwise, you are incorrect.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. The requirements to be President are very clearly spelled out.

Come back when you have read it, I'll still be correct when after you do.

 

[Athanasius68]

Many laws come into being because of a circumstance that gives rise to it.

Trump gave rise to it, because before Trump, no one believed any new president would want to hide his taxes.

The law is brought into being by Trump, but will apply to all future presidents, therefore.

Not buying your argument, that it is, per se, "about Trump".

That's okay. Just that it should not apply in 2020 when it involves Trump. That's the part that would trip it up.

 

[Obscurity]

I want to see Hunter Biden’s taxes and since his dad was pulling the strings in Ukraine, it’s relevant to Joe’s fitness.



It has to do with not wanting to become like Italy and fractionalize the electorate.

And queue the rabid right wing conspiracies.

No Biden fan but you lot are ****ing insane.

 

[snakestretcher]

They should just man up and eliminate everyone they don’t like from the ballot and show the electorate who really runs things.

It isn't Trump, that's for sure. He couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery.

 

[JackA]

I don't see how placing a requirement to be on a ballot equals harming the integrity of open elections, so I'm not seeing you point.

Because the requirement if not complied with closes the ballot. But you believe that’s a good idea in this case. You might be right.

 

[Perotista]

Works for me.

Means nothing, Trump doesn't have a snowballs chance in Hades of winning Illinois. If I were Trump, I would just shrug and move on.

What I don't understand is Democrats trying to make something that is purely voluntary, mandatory. There is no law that any presidential candidate must release his tax returns. Perhaps the Democrats in Illinois need to look up the meaning of the word voluntary in Webster's dictionary.

I view this as partisan politics at its worse. One party going to any extent to try to get a gotcha.

 

[cabse5]

To show us all that he is what he says he is. He has been proven to be a pathological liar but tax returns have to be truthful or big problems occur for him. As such, his tax returns are the only thing he cannot overcome with his own words. It proves what he really is. Even Trump supporters should want to see them for exactly the same reason. After all, you guys are the saps that he has convinced that he is the best of the best. Why don't you want proof of that? Or are you so willing to continue to believe his words that you will throw all caution to the wind?

Did he say when he'd show his tax returns? Hum? That probably doesn't matter to you. Your mind is already made up.

 

[cabse5]

Trump fans want voters to show ID when they vote to prove they are American, why not have the candidates show their tax returns to prove that they are law abiding Americans?

You don't know the difference between an American and tax return-showing American running for president?

BTW, there's nothing about showing tax returns that's part of presidential requirements in The Constitution. For those who don't know, those requirements are located at Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of The Constitution. SCOTUS won't see any tax return-showing requirement in The Constitution, either.

You wouldn't want a 'tax' on those who run for president like requiring tax returns to be shown unless you're considering being fascist.

 

[cabse5]

That will take more than just a law.

Requirements for President are a Constitutional issue.

You've effectively got less than a year. I'd suggest you get started.

Yes. You mean the amendment process.

 

[cabse5]

Difficult when one has no clue what a fascist is. This has to do with States exercising their power to try and compel the sitting president to commit to transparency and prove he does not have conflicts of interest or compromising interests.

You don't know what a fascist is, do you?

 

[cabse5]

Fair point. So let the candidates push for an ammendment and let's see Trump supporters argue for corruption.

So, you admit this isn't constitutional pressure you're putting on Trump but political pressure. You know, like the political pressure to have Barr release the Mueller Report totally unredacted?

Is The Constitution all that important to you? You want states to circumvent The Constitution. It's not like there isn't requirements (3 of them) already revealed in Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of The Constitution.