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

[Condor060]

I was referring to partisan party dirty deeds in general. Like when McConnell refused to allow a vote on Garland. Total partisan bull****.

Oh yeah, Gottcha. I thought you were just referring to the senate vote. My mistake bro

 

[Stealers Wheel]

I'm not aware that California or NY currently imposes any particular onerous qualifications. That would run up against the Constitution. I also think the proposals designed to add to or negate the intent of the Constitution will fail. I will bet they will be challenged.

Nevertheless, states do place prerequisites above and beyond constitutional qualifications to place a name on the ballot. For example, in California, as an independent candidate, in order to have your name placed on the ballot, you must present petitions that equal at least 1% of the registered voters in California. That is not in the U.S. Constitution. It is a hurdle placed by the state. Perfectly legal.

 

[jimbo]

Nevertheless, states do place prerequisites above and beyond constitutional qualifications to place a name on the ballot. For example, in California, as an independent candidate, in order to have your name placed on the ballot, you must present petitions that equal at least 1% of the registered voters in California. That is not in the U.S. Constitution. It is a hurdle placed by the state. Perfectly legal.

I get the point, and to some degree I agree with you.

I think this and the attempted abolishment of the EC will get tested in court. I think they will both lose.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

I get the point, and to some degree I agree with you.

I think this and the attempted abolishment of the EC will get tested in court. I think they will both lose.

The EC cannot be abolished short of a constitutional amendment, nor do I think it should be. However, the EC is not working quite like the FF would have envisioned.

 

[OscarLevant]

I never said it was unconstitutional. The states control ballot access, all states up to this point have given Republican and Democratic Party candidates automatic ballot access. It's third party candidates and independents that must jump through the hoops of getting signatures etc.

The constitution also gives each state legislature the power to award their state's electoral votes as they deem fit. A popular vote doesn't even have to be held which was the case prior to the civil war for quite a few states. States can set the requirements to appear on their ballot and have in the case of third parties and independents. Being a Republican and or a Democrat doesn't change that.

What I'd be careful of is denying a sitting president ballot access is a tit for tat. States controlled by Republican legislatures can just as easy revoke the automatic ballot access for Democrats as Democratically controlled states can for Trump.

Illinois may make ballot access contingent on tax return release which is voluntary up to this point. Republican states might make it about something else. An example might be the Florida state legislature controlled by Republicans might come up with that something else to deny the Democratic presidential candidate ballot access and with a Republican Governor, sign it into law. Tit for tat. That is a very real possibility.

It's like the nuclear option Senator Reid first used not thinking it would ever be used against the Democrats. Sure requirements for ballot access is constitutional in my opinion, but you could be playing with fire.

Fine but presidential Democratic candidates are totally willing to show their taxes so fire away

 

[OscarLevant]

It was your method of vetting with which I was arguing: "Presidents have more impact on our daily lives, sufficient that the rule was made. "

The issue itself of ballot access will likely come down to reasonableness at the Supreme Court. Is it reasonable to permit anyone who wants to be on the ballot to actually be on the ballot. In that case there are thresholds that need to be met, as you pointed out, signatures. Unfortunately party candidates have the infrastructure to meet those thresholds, and perhaps electronic voting could eliminate that barrier.

It is up to the voting citizens of the US to vet their candidates and they have the power to reject anyone, including a sitting President. The requirements for office is quite clear and very basic and while you may want more standards, they don't exist. I posted earlier that this would be a challenge between the 12th Amendment and Article II, Section 3, Clause 5. That's what the Supreme Court does, it adjudicates between sometimes conflicting sections of the Constitution.

One more comment on this point:
"One more thing, I"m not even saying the president's taxes should be made avialable[sic] to the public, but they should at least be made available to the appropriate committees in congress and the senate, so if public airing of private info is your beef, that isn't my argument."

The oversight of the election of President by the Congress is also governed by Congress and candidate financial disclosures must be provided to the FEC with which Congress has oversight. Separation of Powers would dictate that for the purpose evaluation qualifications of a President for office, Congress has no role beyond that described in the 12th Amendment.

I'll await the Supreme Court decision, perhaps a lofty perch, but a position with which I am comfortable.

Given the power of the presidency we need to know that the president is not a crook and seeing his tax returns will greatly improve congress's ability to make sure the president is not a crook. If you recall it was Nixon declaring that I'm Not a Crook and here's my taxes that got this whole ball rolling in the first place

 

[jimbo]

The EC cannot be abolished short of a constitutional amendment, nor do I think it should be. However, the EC is not working quite like the FF would have envisioned.

On the contrary, it's working like it was intended. The small states feared the large states would gobble them up and they would be left without representation.

You're correct, the EC will not be abolished any time soon. The real question is whether the states can do an end around. Both with this and the addition of requirements as a condition of being on the ballot. I'm sure both will come before SCOTUS. I'm not sure how they will turn out.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Given the power of the presidency we need to know that the president is not a crook and seeing his tax returns will greatly improve congress's ability to make sure the president is not a crook. If you recall it was Nixon declaring that I'm Not a Crook and here's my taxes that got this whole ball rolling in the first place

Have Congress amend the Constitution then if you want Presidential candidates to submit tax returns for review. Congress has created the FEC for that task. I prefer that candidates publish their taxes voluntarily, my beef with the Illinois efforts is that these State representatives didn't include themselves. You know, the item I posted about when you initially replied to me.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

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.

My, what a novel assertion.

How, exactly, is this 'harassment'?

Are you sure you understand what that word means?

 

[OscarLevant]

Have Congress amend the Constitution then if you want Presidential candidates to submit tax returns for review. Congress has created the FEC for that task. I prefer that candidates publish their taxes voluntarily, my beef with the Illinois efforts is that these State representatives didn't include themselves. You know, the item I posted about when you initially replied to me.

Assuming that requiring a president to show his taxes to the appropriate committees in Congress is unconstitutional which I do not believe it is

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Assuming that requiring a president to show his taxes to the appropriate committees in Congress is unconstitutional which I do not believe it is

The topic is candidates for President tax forms, not sitting Presidents unrelated to the election.

As for your belief in that, when 2 branches disagree, this too would go to the Supreme Court.

 

[Perotista]

Fine but presidential Democratic candidates are totally willing to show their taxes so fire away

LOL, release of tax returns are purely voluntary. There is not law or requirement for presidential candidates to do so. Democrats have done it voluntarily as have Republicans for the last 40 or so years. It has become traditional, but being traditional doesn't make it mandatory. So too was the 60 vote requirement in the senate for presidential and judicial nominees traditional until senator Reid threw tradition out the window with his nuclear option. Reid threw out 200 plus years of tradition, Trump is bucking only 40.

 

[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.

We will see if it stands up in court. SCOTUS hopefully will continue to protect our rights despite the democrats attempts to take them away.

 

[cabse5]

Um, no one did. Its the uneducated Right Wingers now trying to change the meaning. Literally every resource you will find, will rightly call them Right Wing. Italian fascism was in coalition with the National Blocs Right Wing donation, which had Conservative parties, Classical Liberal parties, and antisocialist parties. In Germany, the Nazis formed the Harzburg Front with the German National People's Party, by which they overcome electorally the Social Democrats and Communists (the Left).

If they were so Leftist, how come they opposed the Left and locked up the Left first (such as Dacau) and always came to power in coalition with Right Wing Conservative parties?

SIAP. Why did Nazis fight the Dacau, another leftist German political group? For the same reason the red communists fought the white communists in nascent communist Russia after the fall of the Czar...FOR POWER. Come on you guys, read some history.

 

[cabse5]

Yup, that's how it's done. The average amendment takes about 10 years. Time is running out.

Well, you know they believe in fascism so following the literal meaning of The Constitution may not be their plan of attack.

 

[TrueScotsman]

SIAP. Why did Nazis fight the Dacau, another leftist German political group? For the same reason the red communists fought the white communists in nascent communist Russia after the fall of the Czar...FOR POWER. Come on you guys, read some history.

Fight the Dacau? And then you tell me to read history after you completely ignore the substance of my argument which demonstrates that Fascists always rose to power in coalition with other Right Wing parties. Sure, they only singled out the leadership of the Social Democrats and Communists because of "Power." Apparently, the Nazis were so Left Wing that the Right was too busy going along with them to be locked up.