• 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!

Supreme Court might give election to Trump

RobertU

RobertU

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2018
Messages
1,515
Reaction score
631
Location
Vacaville, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Several Democratic-controlled state legislatures are working on laws to require presidential candidates to file copies of their tax returns with the state to qualify for the ballot, a move directly aimed at Trump, who has refused to disclose his income tax forms.

The Supreme Court has already struck down state-legislated term limits on senators and congressmen. In U.S. Terms Limits Inc. v. Thornton, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, "If the qualifications set forth in the text of the Constitution are to be changed, that text must be amended." Presumably, that obstacle with states meddling in congressional qualifications would also apply to presidential standards.

However, Laurence Tribe, a Harvard University law professor, said the tax filing requirement is "not an interference with any federal prerogative, nor does it filter out in advance any set of presidential candidates who meet the Constitution's age, residence, and other qualifications."

Source: Can States Ban Trump From the Ballot If He Doesn’t Release His Tax Returns? | The New Republic

The general assumption is that Republicans would challenge such laws soon after they are enacted or enforced. However, a cleverer approach might be to hold off on the legal appeals until soon after the 2020 election.

If Trump, disqualified in several blue states, loses the electoral college vote, Trump's attorneys could ask the Supreme Court to declare the tax filing requirement unconstitutional, which must be remedied by tossing out the electoral votes in all the states that denied voters their constitutional right to vote for Trump. If the conservative-majority court agreed, Trump would likely have most of the remaining electoral votes and be reelected president.
 
Those Dems really hate Trump. They'll try anything to get him. Even if it means circumventing the Constitution. After all, it's just words on a piece of paper that someone wrote more than 200 years ago.
 
RobertU said:
Several Democratic-controlled state legislatures are working on laws to require presidential candidates to file copies of their tax returns with the state to qualify for the ballot, a move directly aimed at Trump, who has refused to disclose his income tax forms.

The Supreme Court has already struck down state-legislated term limits on senators and congressmen. In U.S. Terms Limits Inc. v. Thornton, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, "If the qualifications set forth in the text of the Constitution are to be changed, that text must be amended." Presumably, that obstacle with states meddling in congressional qualifications would also apply to presidential standards.

However, Laurence Tribe, a Harvard University law professor, said the tax filing requirement is "not an interference with any federal prerogative, nor does it filter out in advance any set of presidential candidates who meet the Constitution's age, residence, and other qualifications."

Source: Can States Ban Trump From the Ballot If He Doesn’t Release His Tax Returns? | The New Republic

The general assumption is that Republicans would challenge such laws soon after they are enacted or enforced. However, a cleverer approach might be to hold off on the legal appeals until soon after the 2020 election.

If Trump, disqualified in several blue states, loses the electoral college vote, Trump's attorneys could ask the Supreme Court to declare the tax filing requirement unconstitutional, which must be remedied by tossing out the electoral votes in all the states that denied voters their constitutional right to vote for Trump. If the conservative-majority court agreed, Trump would likely have most of the remaining electoral votes and be reelected president.
Click to expand...

That's pretty convoluted and very unlikely.
 
RobertU said:
Several Democratic-controlled state legislatures are working on laws to require presidential candidates to file copies of their tax returns with the state to qualify for the ballot, a move directly aimed at Trump, who has refused to disclose his income tax forms.

The Supreme Court has already struck down state-legislated term limits on senators and congressmen. In U.S. Terms Limits Inc. v. Thornton, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, "If the qualifications set forth in the text of the Constitution are to be changed, that text must be amended." Presumably, that obstacle with states meddling in congressional qualifications would also apply to presidential standards.

However, Laurence Tribe, a Harvard University law professor, said the tax filing requirement is "not an interference with any federal prerogative, nor does it filter out in advance any set of presidential candidates who meet the Constitution's age, residence, and other qualifications."

Source: Can States Ban Trump From the Ballot If He Doesn’t Release His Tax Returns? | The New Republic

The general assumption is that Republicans would challenge such laws soon after they are enacted or enforced. However, a cleverer approach might be to hold off on the legal appeals until soon after the 2020 election.

If Trump, disqualified in several blue states, loses the electoral college vote, Trump's attorneys could ask the Supreme Court to declare the tax filing requirement unconstitutional, which must be remedied by tossing out the electoral votes in all the states that denied voters their constitutional right to vote for Trump. If the conservative-majority court agreed, Trump would likely have most of the remaining electoral votes and be reelected president.
Click to expand...

No constitutional violation, if voters still have the right to write Trump's name on the ballot.

States usually control the elections and the federal courts don't usually interfere...which is why 2001 was such an outlier anomaly.
 
Isn't it right wing conservatives who constantly defend the Electoral College and proclaim that if you enter and election by a set of rules, - even if the rules are unfair in the eyes of some - then you have to accept the results? Such would be true for Trump in the scenario in the OP. He played by the rules and he lost. He would have no case - in the eyes of right wing conservatives based on their support for the rules - no matter how unfair - in the last which first elected Trump to his office.

Of course, this would mean that the Trump supporters have some degree of intellectual consistency and we know what a reeking load of elephant crap that is.
 
RobertU said:
Several Democratic-controlled state legislatures are working on laws to require presidential candidates to file copies of their tax returns with the state to qualify for the ballot, a move directly aimed at Trump, who has refused to disclose his income tax forms.

The Supreme Court has already struck down state-legislated term limits on senators and congressmen. In U.S. Terms Limits Inc. v. Thornton, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, "If the qualifications set forth in the text of the Constitution are to be changed, that text must be amended." Presumably, that obstacle with states meddling in congressional qualifications would also apply to presidential standards.

However, Laurence Tribe, a Harvard University law professor, said the tax filing requirement is "not an interference with any federal prerogative, nor does it filter out in advance any set of presidential candidates who meet the Constitution's age, residence, and other qualifications."

Source: Can States Ban Trump From the Ballot If He Doesn’t Release His Tax Returns? | The New Republic

The general assumption is that Republicans would challenge such laws soon after they are enacted or enforced. However, a cleverer approach might be to hold off on the legal appeals until soon after the 2020 election.

If Trump, disqualified in several blue states, loses the electoral college vote, Trump's attorneys could ask the Supreme Court to declare the tax filing requirement unconstitutional, which must be remedied by tossing out the electoral votes in all the states that denied voters their constitutional right to vote for Trump. If the conservative-majority court agreed, Trump would likely have most of the remaining electoral votes and be reelected president.
Click to expand...

It should be challenged now, as soon as it is actually signed into law (if it hasn't yet) to give it time to run up to the SCOTUS.

I'd see the State argument would likely be that it doesn't prevent someone from running, they can get on the ballot if they comply with the rule.

However, IMHO SCOTUS would rule that it is unconstitutional. Likely asserting that it is an artifice meant to circumvent the Constitution. That if a Presidential candidate otherwise qualified, then no other requirement can be placed preventing citizens from exercising their right to vote for that candidate absent a Constitutional Amendment.

No one should be required to reveal their income tax information. The SOLE purpose of a requirement to provide assets and wage information is to properly assess taxes. It is otherwise confidential.

What one can do is make this a personal reason as to why you would or would not vote for a candidate. You always have that right.
 
Last edited:
It seems like unconstitutional dirty pool.
 
Captain Adverse said:
It should be challenged now, as soon as it is actually signed into law (if it hasn't yet) to give it time to run up to the SCOTUS.

I'd see the State argument would likely be that it doesn't prevent someone from running, they can get on the ballot if they comply with the rule.

However, IMHO SCOTUS would rule that it is unconstitutional. Likely asserting that it is an artifice meant to circumvent the Constitution. That if a Presidential candidate otherwise qualified, then no other requirement can be placed preventing citizens from exercising their right to vote for that candidate absent a Constitutional Amendment.

No one should be required to reveal their income tax information. The SOLE purpose of a requirement to provide assets and wage information is to properly assess taxes. It is otherwise confidential.

What one can do is make this a personal reason as to why you would or would not vote for a candidate. You always have that right.
Click to expand...

I tend to think it will come down the other way. Candidates are already to provide certain information when filing for office. Term Limits ruled there can be some disclosure requirements for ballot access, and I see this as just an extension of what’s allowed there. Having to provide tax returns isn’t so much a qualification in the same way paying a filing fee, a financial disclosure form, or providing a list of signatures aren’t really qualifications. Anyone can provide tax returns, the law doesn’t rule anyone out intrinsically.

That said, I don’t like the law and don’t think it should be enacted.
 
Anagram said:
I tend to think it will come down the other way. Candidates are already to provide certain information when filing for office. Term Limits ruled there can be some disclosure requirements for ballot access, and I see this as just an extension of what’s allowed there. Having to provide tax returns isn’t so much a qualification in the same way paying a filing fee, a financial disclosure form, or providing a list of signatures aren’t really qualifications. Anyone can provide tax returns, the law doesn’t rule anyone out intrinsically.

That said, I don’t like the law and don’t think it should be enacted.
Click to expand...

The law states that Tax returns are confidential unless voluntarily provided by the taxpayer. The key word is "voluntarily."

Would you accept being required to submit your tax returns as part of an employment application for any other job? How about for school enrollment, to buy a car, or any other interpersonal interaction?

There is NO reason a Presidential candidate should be required to submit their tax information for public review. It is the IRS's responsibility to review and if need be audit a taxpayer. Trump has been audited many times over the years. You don't think if there was anything overtly illegal he would not have faced the music?

IMO it is just prurient nosiness, coupled with a desire to find some kind of dirt to use against him. Well, if that is the case then IMO we should be advocating access to anyone's tax returns simply because we are nosey and think we have "a right to know."

[EDIT] As an aside, I am a major advocate of privacy rights. My argument is that there are very few things "the people" have a right to know. The few that are must have a rational purpose and be in the public interest (i.e. affecting the rights, health, or finances of the public at large) not just because some members of the public might like to know.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
The law states that Tax returns are confidential unless voluntarily provided by the taxpayer. The key word is "voluntarily."

Would you accept being required to submit your tax returns as part of an employment application for any other job? How about for school enrollment, to buy a car, or any other interpersonal interaction?

There is NO reason a Presidential candidate should be required to submit their tax information for public review. It is the IRS's responsibility to review and if need be audit a taxpayer. Trump has been audited many times over the years. You don't think if there was anything overtly illegal he would not have faced the music?

IMO it is just prurient nosiness, coupled with a desire to find some kind of dirt to use against him. Well, if that is the case then IMO we should be advocating access to anyone's tax returns simply because we are nosey and think we have "a right to know."
Click to expand...

And some of those reasons are why I don’t support it as I’ve said. Just commenting on the constitutionality.
 
haymarket said:
Isn't it right wing conservatives who constantly defend the Electoral College and proclaim that if you enter and election by a set of rules, - even if the rules are unfair in the eyes of some - then you have to accept the results? Such would be true for Trump in the scenario in the OP. He played by the rules and he lost. He would have no case - in the eyes of right wing conservatives based on their support for the rules - no matter how unfair - in the last which first elected Trump to his office.

Of course, this would mean that the Trump supporters have some degree of intellectual consistency and we know what a reeking load of elephant crap that is.
Click to expand...

Trump really does live in your heads. Any such law, if it were passed and then stood up to constitutional muster (not likely) would almost certainly be too late to apply to the 2020 election.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Trump really does live in your heads. Any such law, if it were passed and then stood up to constitutional muster (not likely) would almost certainly be too late to apply to the 2020 election.
Click to expand...

Trump lives in ALL of our heads as he is the only President we have.
 
Such a silly thing to be worried about. The Democrats are rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
 
haymarket said:
Trump lives in ALL of our heads as he is the only President we have.
Click to expand...

Nice try, however you are 100 times more obsessed with Trump then I am. For me, it's not just about Trump. It's about what he ran for office on and what he is getting done.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Nice try, however you are 100 times more obsessed with Trump then I am. For me, it's not just about Trump. It's about what he ran for office on and what he is getting done.
Click to expand...

But yet - here you are defending Trump despite your protestations and attempts to downplay your own involvement.
 
haymarket said:
But yet - here you are defending Trump despite your protestations and attempts to downplay your own involvement.
Click to expand...

Oh my. Trump really does live in your head rent free. What's for me to defend or downplay? I am proud of my vote for Trump in 2016 and will vote for him again in 2020? I am defending nothing. I am merely pointing out nonsense when it comes out of the mouths of certified Trump haters.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Oh my. Trump really does live in your head rent free. What's for me to defend or downplay? I am proud of my vote for Trump in 2016 and will vote for him again in 2020? I am defending nothing. I am merely pointing out nonsense when it comes out of the mouths of certified Trump haters.
Click to expand...

Trump is president like it or not. That is a fact and WE ALL deal with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom