The Sore Loser Symphony travels to New Jersey
(The Hill) New Jersey lawmakers this week passed legislation that would force any presidential and vice-presidential candidates to disclose their federal tax returns in order to appear on the state’s ballots starting in 2020, the Wall Street Journal reported Friday.
The bill was approved in the Democratic-controlled state legislature along party lines and awaits a signature from Gov. Chris Christie, an ally of President Trump. Christie’s office has not yet made an official statement on the legislation.
The bill was inspired by Trump, who refused to release his tax returns on the campaign trail and since entering office, breaking with years of election tradition.
If the bill is enacted, Electoral College voters wouldn’t be able to cast a vote for any candidate who didn’t disclose their tax returns.
First, it is doubtful that Christie will sign this, unless there is some bad blood between Trump and himself. So, we’ll see.
Second, is this Constitutional? NJ is not the only state looking to pass legislation like this, Democrats are also giving it a whirl in New Mexico, Hawaii, Oregon and California. Certainly, States can specify the terms of their electors, up to a point. However, the Constitution does state specifically who can be president
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.
So, a natural born citizen and at least 35. Nothing about having to release taxes. As Kyle Sammin wrote a little over a week ago on the subject, states might ignore the Constitution, but, the courts won’t (though, I wouldn’t be too sure of that, since leftists on the courts care little for the Constitution).
Arkansas was one of those states, and the law they passed quickly found its way into court. The case, U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, was appealed to the Supreme Court, which held that the term limits were unconstitutional. The opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens cut right to the logical inconsistency of states altering the qualifications for federal offices.
[A]s the Framers recognized, electing representatives to the National Legislature was a new right, arising from the Constitution itself. The Tenth Amendment thus provides no basis for concluding that the States possess reserved power to add qualifications to those that are fixed in the Constitution. Instead, any state power to set the qualifications for membership in Congress must derive not from the reserved powers of state sovereignty, but rather from the delegated powers of national sovereignty. In the absence of any constitutional delegation to the States of power to add qualifications to those enumerated in the Constitution, such a power does not exist.
As Stevens found in a later case on the same topic, states may be charged with administering federal elections, but they may not use that power to impose policy choices that the Constitution does not contain. Even beyond the historical precedent, the reason for this is obvious. If each state determines on its own who may be elected to federal office, the Congress would no longer be a truly federal legislature. It would revert instead to the confederal legislature created by the Articles of Confederation.
This is in terms of states attempting to impose term limits on Congress, but, it applies here as well. Notice this part: “The Tenth Amendment thus provides no basis for concluding that the States possess reserved power to add qualifications to those that are fixed in the Constitution.”
Anyhow, you go with your Sore Loser Symphony, Liberals.
Although, as we’re finding out, it’s a great idea that we know about all the financial entanglements of our presidential candidates, our Constitution is clear on the issue.
In addition, regarding presidential requirements, our Constitution is silent on birth certificates.
No it’s not. It states one must be a natural born citizen therefore, one must be able to prove it.
The Constitution is not “clear” on the subject but it does touch on it. It prohibits someone holding an office in the federal government from gaining an interest say, in a hotel – it does not prohibit someone who already has an interest from accepting an office. Like President Trump.
If you are referring to an emolument Justice Jeffery, an emolument is a fixed periodical payment or privilege with nothing required in return. A one time payment would be a present.
Birth certificates, like death and marriage certificates are a matter of public record. A persons tax return is private for many reasons like it may involve other people and their businesses which are none of your business. It does not matter what office one is running for would you want your private financial information put out to the public in this day of identity theft and computer hacking? I wouldn’t.
Yes, presidential tax returns are so important that they didn’t even start the voluntary process till Nixon was president. Wasn’t that like 200 yrs ago or something?
Yes, presidential tax returns are so important that they didn’t even start the voluntary process till Nixon was president. Wasn’t that like 200 yrs ago or something? They probably want the bill passed so they don’t have to watch Maddow make a fool of herself anymore.
Hoagie,
We get that you are angry, that you are always angry.
As Teach correctly pointed out, here’s what our Constitution states regarding qualifications for president:
Regarding birth certificates, some people, famously the current part-time resident of our White House, don’t accept them as proof of citizenship.
We didn’t claim that tax returns SHOULD be required only that they might help us avoid “electing” an unfit person like trumpy. Our point was that our Constitution DOES NOT require disclosing one’s tax returns. Our system depends on the good sense of fully informed American voters rejecting unfit candidates, but clearly the system is not bulletproof – a lying demagogue, with help from foreign actors, can become president, even when a minority voted for him.
Not sure why you bring up emoluments.
You frequently start out with some preposterous supposition pulled out of thin air and based on your own projections. This is no exception.
Why on earth would I be angry? I have a beautiful wife and a comfortable life. Through my church, the Masons and my Club I get to participate in charitable events that give a hand up to less fortunate Americans and that help educate some to build better lives and be better Christians and Americans and I find that personally fulfilling. I have a few close friends and many extended friends all of whom I hold dear. I’ve had the opportunity to serve my country, build several businesses and marry two wonderful women. Plus, I wake up every morning knowing the very fact that Donald J. Trump is President of the United States is making all you radical anti American leftists batshit crazy.
What’s to be angry about? Now, pass me a beer.