• 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!

California passes a law requiring Presidential candidates to show tax returns

Terryj said:
California enacted a law this week that requires presidential candidates to submit five years of income-tax filings to be eligible for the state's primary ballot, the Los Angeles Times reported.

My question is, is this Constitutional, for the Constitution only list 3 requirements to run for POTUS. Can California subvert the Constitution in this manner, I guess we'll have to wait and see how this pans out in court, because you know it's going to be headed that way.

California just passed a law requiring Trump to release his tax returns in order to be on the primary ballot
Click to expand...

Newspapers, news shows and opinion broadcasts have been flooded with discussions on this issue since Newsom signed it. Your point about extending federal law was brought up several times, one or two recalled a few years ago when Arizona tried to extend federal law on immigration. Others are talking disenfranchisement, equal protections and various other things.
 
Anagram said:
Depends on whether this is really a qualification or not. The Supreme Court has allowed signature requirements, filing fees, and certain other disclosures in order to get on the ballot. Unlike an age or residency limit, requiring disclosure of tax returns isn't something that inherently makes any potential candidate ineligible as anyone could release their returns. It's a largely unexplored area of law, with no cases directly on this issue and few on similar issues, but I think there's a fair chance it would be constitutional.

That said, I don't particularly like these laws.
Click to expand...

I think it could run afoul of the constitution.

US term v Thornton could shoot these down based on this.

So too, the Constitution prohibits States from imposing congressional qualifications additional to those specifically enumerated in its text. Petitioners' argument that States possess control over qualifications as part of the original powers reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment is rejected for two reasons. First, the power to add qualifications is not within the States' pre-Tenth-Amendment "original powers," but is a new right arising from the Constitution itself, and thus is not reserved. Second, even if the States possessed some original power in this area, it must be concluded that the Framers intended the Constitution to be the exclusive source of qualifications for Members of Congress, and that the Framers thereby "divested" States of any power to add qualifications.

States are attempting to inact additional qualifications for the presidency beyond their powers to do so.
 
ludin said:
I think it could run afoul of the constitution.

US term v Thornton could shoot these down based on this.

So too, the Constitution prohibits States from imposing congressional qualifications additional to those specifically enumerated in its text. Petitioners' argument that States possess control over qualifications as part of the original powers reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment is rejected for two reasons. First, the power to add qualifications is not within the States' pre-Tenth-Amendment "original powers," but is a new right arising from the Constitution itself, and thus is not reserved. Second, even if the States possessed some original power in this area, it must be concluded that the Framers intended the Constitution to be the exclusive source of qualifications for Members of Congress, and that the Framers thereby "divested" States of any power to add qualifications.

States are attempting to inact additional qualifications for the presidency beyond their powers to do so.
Click to expand...

The argument against that, as mentioned in my post, is that this type of thing, along with filing fees, signature requirements, and some other disclosures already required to get on the ballot aren't really qualifications.

Term Limits was different in that it actually inherently makes certain people ineligible, unlike requiring filing tax returns.
 
Anagram said:
The argument against that, as mentioned in my post, is that this type of thing, along with filing fees, signature requirements, and some other disclosures already required to get on the ballot aren't really qualifications.

Term Limits was different in that it actually inherently makes certain people ineligible, unlike requiring filing tax returns.
Click to expand...

Those could be written off as cost to produce a ballot.
that does nothing in part of adding qualifications to be president.

The same could apply though. that the states are adding qualifications to the presidency by way of ballot.
they tried to do the same with term limits and it got shot down.
 
azgreg said:
That's for California to decide or are you no longer for state's rights?
Click to expand...

You cry about States rights but California has no problem accepting 436.1 billion in federal money from taxpayers.
 
If California requires this now and you tax information is protected under federal law, then this requirement really goes no where. They would be under the same restrictions and any agency of the government requesting tax information, it can not be released to the public unless authorized by the person who owns the tax information. So if California is trying to use this ploy as political fodder against a candidate they would be violating federal law.
 
Personally, I don't think its necessary to require it. One could argue that it would give an insight to any possible emolument problems, however. However, I would like to point out that this wouldn't even be an issue if Trump hadn't demanded the tax returns of his opponents be released....and then refused to do it himself and then continue to lie about the so-called "audit" and IRS policy on the matter.
 
Why doesn't Californian Democrats just pass a law that declares the Democratic candidate will become the president since they believe they can rewrite the Constitution?
 
ludin said:
Those could be written off as cost to produce a ballot.
that does nothing in part of adding qualifications to be president.

The same could apply though. that the states are adding qualifications to the presidency by way of ballot.
they tried to do the same with term limits and it got shot down.
Click to expand...

Those could not all be written off as cost to produce a ballot. Just the filing fee. Second, it’s very unlikely, it would apply to them. It’s dicta since it wasn’t essential to the holding, but the SCOTUS specifically called out those things as allowable in Term Limits.
 
Anagram said:
There doesn’t need to be probable cause because there’s no search or seizure.
Click to expand...

No, but it's a method to keep a person from running for president, a constitutional right, unless they give up another right.
 
joko104 said:
Why doesn't Californian Democrats just pass a law that declares the Democratic candidate will become the president since they believe they can rewrite the Constitution?
Click to expand...

What they are trying isn't that far off.
 
Lord of Planar said:
No, but it's a method to keep a person from running for president, a constitutional right, unless they give up another right.
Click to expand...

If there is no search and seizure they aren't giving up that other right though. Because the Fourth Amendment only guarantees protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
 
Anagram said:
If there is no search and seizure they aren't giving up that other right though. Because the Fourth Amendment only guarantees protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Click to expand...

And who decides that this is reasonable?
 
Lord of Planar said:
And who decides that this is reasonable?
Click to expand...

It really doesn't matter if it's reasonable or unreasonable for 4th Amendment purposes if it's not a search or seizure which you seem to admit its not in Post 35.
 
Anagram said:
It really doesn't matter if it's reasonable or unreasonable for 4th Amendment purposes if it's not a search or seizure which you seem to admit its not in Post 35.
Click to expand...

But it can be legally argued that it is. You are requiring something from a person, that they would otherwise not furnish. You are giving an ultimatum.

Are you really such an authoritarian that you are going to argue for disclose of material otherwise protected by the fourth?

Shame on you!
 
Lord of Planar said:
But it can be legally argued that it is. You are requiring something from a person, that they would otherwise not furnish. You are giving an ultimatum.

Are you really such an authoritarian that you are going to argue for disclose of material otherwise protected by the fourth?

Shame on you!
Click to expand...

First I'm certainly not going to argue for it. I've said over and over that I don't agree with the law. I just don't think your Fourth Amendment argument holds any water. And I think this is backed up by the many, many conservative and libertarians making constitutional arguments against the law, none of whom are invoking the Fourth Amendment.

Second, I really don't think it can be legally argued that it is, at least in a way that stands any chance of success. This is not something at all similar to anything that has ever been found to be a search or seizure before. It's not the government taking the information. A candidate is willingly providing it in order to appear on a ballot. It's just not a search or seizure.

You'd be better off taking the Qualifications Clause or First Amendment arguments.
 
Anagram said:
Those could not all be written off as cost to produce a ballot. Just the filing fee. Second, it’s very unlikely, it would apply to them. It’s dicta since it wasn’t essential to the holding, but the SCOTUS specifically called out those things as allowable in Term Limits.
Click to expand...

I am arguing that the ruling in that case could be applied here.
they are making up terms to run for a federal office that is not in their power to do.
 
ludin said:
I am arguing that the ruling in that case could be applied here.
they are making up terms to run for a federal office that is not in their power to do.
Click to expand...

It’s not really the same though. Handing in tax returns is more like the limited disclosures that the SCOTUS said was alright in Term Limits, than something like term limits that actually disqualifies people. Anyone can easily disclose tax returns. Nobody who has served the max number of terms can do anything to alleviate that. That’s an actual qualification.

It’s an open question of law, so there’s not much case Law right now, but if this were to go to the SCOTUS I think it would survive, especially with the current makeup of the Court. Thomas voted against in Term Limits and thought states easily had the power to make these requirements, as did Scalia who has a similar judicial philosophy to Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. I think it would probably pass muster.
 
I wonder how inflexible the requirement is. Does the law prohibit a person from running if they didn't have to file five years of tax returns because they had a low income? If so, the California law would be disqualifying a lot of poor people from running in the primary.
 
California has moved its 2020 primary to early March - so it's likely the state is going to have to go through 15-20 dem candidates as well as Trump's. Gonna be fun.
 
Anagram said:
It’s not really the same though. Handing in tax returns is more like the limited disclosures that the SCOTUS said was alright in Term Limits, than something like term limits that actually disqualifies people. Anyone can easily disclose tax returns. Nobody who has served the max number of terms can do anything to alleviate that. That’s an actual qualification.
Click to expand...

I disagree due to the fact that taxes returns have been declared private by the federal government. whether it is easy or not to disclose tax returns is irrelevant.
that ruling had nothing to do with max terms. that bill attempted to set term limits on senators and house members were none exist.


It’s an open question of law, so there’s not much case Law right now, but if this were to go to the SCOTUS I think it would survive, especially with the current makeup of the Court. Thomas voted against in Term Limits and thought states easily had the power to make these requirements, as did Scalia who has a similar judicial philosophy to Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. I think it would probably pass muster.
Click to expand...

It is an open question of law. one that the court would have to decide on.
states can set all the term limits they want for state positions.

federal elections are owned by the federal government guided by the constitution.
there is no requirement to disclose tax returns and the states can't make on.
 
ludin said:
I disagree due to the fact that taxes returns have been declared private by the federal government. whether it is easy or not to disclose tax returns is irrelevant.
that ruling had nothing to do with max terms. that bill attempted to set term limits on senators and house members were none exist.




It is an open question of law. one that the court would have to decide on.
states can set all the term limits they want for state positions.

federal elections are owned by the federal government guided by the constitution.
there is no requirement to disclose tax returns and the states can't make on.
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood my point about max terms. I meant a person who had served the maximum number of terms allowed by the term limits bill would have been ineligible to run again. Unlike that, this bill does not automatically make anyone ineligible, as anyone can produce their returns. That’s why this is arguably not a qualification in the same way. It’s more similar to other financial disclosures, signature requirements, and filing fees that the dicta in Term Limits said would be allowable.

I do think it’s somewhat interesting that a decision like Term Limits, which was seen at the time by Thomas, Scalia, Rehnquist, and O’Connor as massive judicial activism and overreach by the liberal justices is now being not only quoted as gospel by conservatives in this thread, but being talked about like it’s the plain and easy meaning of the constitution that you would be dumb to see differently.

Even if you take it as correct though, I still think the way Term Limits was decided still makes it more likely that this bill is constitutional. The arguments in that case just don’t apply in the same way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom