Release of tax returns as a requirement

[SHRED]

I think, at the very least, that the release of the last 10 years of tax returns should be a requirement when running for Congress, the Presidency, and all high level cabinet selections.
The same rule should apply at the State level also.

With more and more money controlling our politics we need some transparency here.

What do you think?

[Guilded Lilly]

1. At the very least. Yes. n/t

[LonePirate]

2. Wasn't California going to pass a bill to make this a ballot access requirement?

[bettyellen]

10. States are going to get creative now- NY w tuition, Cali w this law..

[mythology]

27. Yes and there is a similar bill being pursued here in Massachusetts as well

[Arkansas Granny]

3. I think you're on the right track and they should be considered as part of the financial disclosures

that candidates have to make.

[SHRED]

4. It would act as a pre-filter

A transparency that would dissuade crooks.

[mountain grammy]

5. Agree

[brooklynite]

6. What I think is irrelevant; if it's not in the Constitution it doesn't matter.

[OregonBlue]

7. But the KGOP is all about state's rights. If states pass laws barring anyone from being on the

ballot unless they release their returns, how are they gonna spin it.

[sdfernando]

13. ahh..but income tax wasn't levied when the Constitution was drafted.

That didn't come until the 16th Amendment in 1913. No reason we cannot require it

[eniwetok]

19. OF COURSE it's in the Constitution

Never heard of the Supremacy Clause?

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

If Congress passes a law saying all presidential candidates must release their tax returns, then as long as it doesn't interfere with any rights... it becomes law.

[Uggwearingdad]

20. And would be shot down unanimously by SCOTUS

Supremacy would not move the standards to your "vision" because there is already a Constitutional standard to hold the office...not amended or repealed.

The Constitutional crap you would have to do to change that...WAY out of the scope of the Article VI, Clause 2

[eniwetok]

21. specifically what crap?

There are stated minimal qualifications, age citizenship, duration of living in US. Convince me it would be unconstitutional for Congress to pass a law to insure a candidate isn't a security threat (in this case possible foreign financial entanglements revealed through disclosure of tax forms).

Specifically, what would have to be amended to allow this?

[onenote]

22. Imposing qualifications beyond those in the Constitution is unconstitutional

For example, state-imposed term limits are unconstitutional. So too would be requirements that a candidate be left handed or able to recite the alphabet backwards or have never been convicted of a crime or any of a million other things one might think of.

The notion that the constitutional qualifications for office cannot be altered by a legislative act was affirmed in US Term Limits v. Thornton.

Now, you might disagree with that ruling, which would put you in the company of the dissenters: Thomas, Scalia, Rehnquist, O'Connor.

[Uggwearingdad]

23. Well played...

[eniwetok]

25. you're not defending your own argument.

I asked you to convince me you were correct... and you're hiding behind someone else's post.

[eniwetok]

24. that decision was about state term limits for Congress

Last edited Wed Jan 4, 2017, 10:12 PM - Edit history (1)

The question here was whether Congress could impose some added vetting for a presidential candidate. Revealing taxes or in rare cases a psychological eval to test for fitness isn't as trivial as whether someone is left or right handed.

But your cited decision deals with states creating their own term limits for Congress. It's not about presidential qualifications. Keyes v Bowen deals more with that issue. The suggestion there is parties should vet their own candidates to avoid Congress rejecting a president elect as unqualified under the 20th.

Getting back to the Supremacy Clause... there may be some leeway if a congressional law is pursuant to the Constitution... say in case of the qualifications for commander in chief. We saw how these powers were modified in the War Powers Act. If it's pursuant to the Constitution... in this case the constitutional duties of the commander in chief... then perhaps Congress could pass some additional vetting.

[onenote]

26. The fact that you like to make up your own version of the law doesn't make it real law.

No, Congress cannot enact laws that go beyond what the Constitution mandates. The qualifications stated in the Constitution for who can become president are not minimum standards that Congress can decide to exceed. Congress can't say that the age standard is a "minimum" standard and thus Congress can specify that someone has to be 52 years six months and 3 days old to be president. Congress can't take the requirement that someone be a natural born citizen and add to it the requirement that no one can run for president if they ever lived outside the United States or a requirement that they not only be a natural born citizen but have been born in one of the original 13 states. Why? Because the stated qualifications are the exclusive qualifications, not the minimum qualifications.

Turning back to the cases you and I have cited, you have ignored a key statement, made at the very beginning of the majority opinion in Thornton: "If the qualifications set forth in the text of the Constitution are to be changed, that text must be amended." The fact that the particular case before the Court involved the Constitutional qualifications to be elected to the House and Senate rather than President is immaterial -- the point is the same: the Constitutional requirements for election to federal office cannot be act by a mere legislative act. It requires a Constitutional amendment.

As for Bowen, your reliance on that case also is misplaced. It was a case in which Alan Keyes (why do crazy repubs seem to be the big supporters of your positions on this issue?) led a fight to force California to investigate whether Obama was qualified to be President. The Court ruled that there was no provision in California law requiring such an investigation and that the Constitutional structure, particularly the 12th Amendment, vested the authority in Congress to make the determination as to whether someone elected to serve as president met the specified CONSTITUTIONAL requirements for such service. But nothing in the 12th Amendment, or the 20th, or any other provision of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to enlarge, reduce or otherwise modify the eligibility requirements specified in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.

Finally, your reliance on the War Powers Act as some sort of precedent supporting the notion that Congress can re-define the eligibility requirements specified in the Constitution is somewhat perplexing. First, the constitutionality of the WPA has not been decided by the SCOTUS. Second, there are arguments about its constitutionality from both sides of the debate -- some argue that it is an unconstitutional limitation on the the President's authority as Commander in Chief. Others state that it is unconstitutional because it is in derogation of the constitutional provision conferring authority to declare war on Congress. But in either case, the argument is that it is in furtherance of some specific power given by the Constitution. Nothing in the Constitution gives Congress authority to impose new eligibility standards on the office of the President.

[eniwetok]

28. Are you running from your own post?

I'm not relying on Bowen... I only brought it up because it actually dealt with the presidency and the decision you originally cited dealt with states setting term limits for Congress. But both dealt with states creating standards... when the issue here was whether Congress could create extra layers of vetting for the presidency which has unique responsibilities unlike any ordinary member of Congress. But the reliance on SCOTUS decisions isn't always the best gauge of anything. By that standard the Ninth remains relatively meaningless because there's little caselaw on the Ninth... even if it's central to defining the limits of government power over individual rights. We've seen the social conservatives on the Court trying to negate the Ninth. SCOTUS decisions have been reversed... such as Lawrence v. Texas and new doctrines can be developed to turn even clear constitutional language on its head... such as Heller which bastardized the clear intent of the Second (Scalia certainly wasn't going to find an individual right to own a firearm in the Ninth).

So you are correct nothing specifically in the Constitution gives Congress authority to impose new eligibility standards on the office of the President... but the key word here is "specifically"... and again I raise the flexibility inherent in the Supremacy Clause which includes: "the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof". It's not a stretch to believe this can't be expanded should a president like Trump prove to be unfit as Commander in Chief. The current approach would be for him to be found unfit under the 25th. But to deal with future Trumps... Congress would find some way to be sure candidates were better vetted.

[onenote]

29. No. I'm not sure what would remotely make you think so.

And as for your apparent belief that acts of Congress are not subservient to the Constitution -- that goes against over 200 years of jurisprudence.

Read in a light most favorable to you, your point apparently is not that Congress can ignore the Constitution, but rather that acts of Congress that are made "in furtherance of" the Constitution are the supreme law of the land. Well, that's true. But what provision of the Constitution would a congressional mandate for the disclosure of tax returns be in furtherance of? The answer is that there is no Constitutional provision that such a law would be "in furtherance of".

[onenote]

32. Yes, I've been part of those discussions as well.

More magical thinking.

[eniwetok]

38. because

Your original claim was

"Imposing qualifications beyond those in the Constitution is unconstitutional"

Based on

US Term Limits v. Thornton.

But a decision on what states can do with federal positions is somewhat irrelevant to the question of what CONGRESS might do. And even your cite "If the qualifications set forth in the text of the Constitution are to be changed, that text must be amended." may not apply simply because none of the existing qualifications are being negated... which would require an amendment. The question is whether qualifications can be added legislatively. You seem to believe that no law is truly legal unless ruled upon... but as we've seen, when politicians are masquerading as justices... rulings can bend towards arbitrary... Bush v Gore comes to mind.

And no, I'm not saying Congress would be doing something unconstitutional... you are. I've long held the reform-proof nature of the Constitution has created a need in both parties to devise clever ways to get around parts of it. The Constitution gives Congress the power to tax and spend for the common defense. How did that morph into the US becoming a global super power with forces all over the globe? I suspect much of that was based on mutual defense treaties. So what if Congress entered into a treaty with other nuclear powers to psychologically vet their top command and control leadership? Are your suggesting this would be unconstitutional? If so, specifically why? Keyes v Bowen suggests the parties vet their candidates. Are you suggesting it would be unconstitutional for Congress to mandate indirect vetting on that level. If so, specifically why? What if Congress merely amended tax law so the tax returns of anyone running for president were automatically made public? Are your suggesting this would be unconstitutional? If so, specifically why?

[onenote]

41. Again, you're wrong.

There is nothing in the Constitution that suggests that the eligibility requirements specified therein are binding on the states but not the federal government and that they could only be changed by the states if there was a constitutional amendment but can be changed by Congress without an amendment. That's just nonsense.

And again, the eligibility requirements are not a minimum set of requirements. They are an exclusive list of requirements. I've explained that already so I'm not going to bother doing so again.

Keyes v. Bowen suggests that parties, in the first, instance, vet candidates to see if they satisfy the constitutional eligibility requirements. Could Congress mandate such vetting? Not if the vetting involves consideration of anything outside the constitutionally prescribed requirements. Put another way: a state can't directly or indirectly make disclosure of medical records, tax returns, criminal records etc a condition of ballot access and the federal government can't do so either. On the other hand, a state might be able to directly or indirectly require proof of age of a candidate and the federal government might be able to direct the states to obtain such proof. But that's because age is one of the constitutionally prescribed eligibility requirements.

Finally, there is an easy answer to your question about a treaty that purported to impose additional eligibility requirements on a president: Treaties cannot supersede the Constitution, something that has been recognized by the courts for a very very long time: “It need hardly be said that a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument.” The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.), 616, 620 (1871).

[eniwetok]

42. we're never going to agree

Last edited Sat Jan 7, 2017, 10:57 AM - Edit history (1)

There is nothing in the Constitution that suggests that the eligibility requirements specified therein are binding on the states but not the federal government and that they could only be changed by the states if there was a constitutional amendment but can be changed by Congress without an amendment. That's just nonsense.


Where have I ever said I want states to act? Are you going to ditch this red herring or not? My first post here was about the federal government. And you're still confusing contradicting the eligibility requirements with adding one legislatively or via treaty.


And again, the eligibility requirements are not a minimum set of requirements. They are an exclusive list of requirements. I've explained that already so I'm not going to bother doing so again.


That's your position. I agree no requirement can be removed without amendment. I disagree none can be added or a workaround crafted. Your claim here, depending on some irrelevant decisions, is weak and you're ignoring how any constitutional argument could be made. For example mandating the release of tax info for a presidential candidate. This right to privacy arguably is not constitutional. It's merely part of the IRS code. Provisions could be crafted that could make the info public WITHOUT affecting constitutional issues of eligibility. The voters can decide whether the finances are relevant... but to make that determination, the voters (or the party) needs that info.


Keyes v. Bowen suggests that parties, in the first, instance, vet candidates to see if they satisfy the constitutional eligibility requirements. Could Congress mandate such vetting? Not if the vetting involves consideration of anything outside the constitutionally prescribed requirements. Put another way: a state can't directly or indirectly make disclosure of medical records, tax returns, criminal records etc a condition of ballot access and the federal government can't do so either. On the other hand, a state might be able to directly or indirectly require proof of age of a candidate and the federal government might be able to direct the states to obtain such proof. But that's because age is one of the constitutionally prescribed eligibility requirements.


You're back with the red herring about state actions.


Finally, there is an easy answer to your question about a treaty that purported to impose additional eligibility requirements on a president: Treaties cannot supersede the Constitution, something that has been recognized by the courts for a very very long time: “It need hardly be said that a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument.” The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.), 616, 620 (1871).


I again disagree since the treaty I suggested does NOTHING to negate any part of the Constitution. And while there are decisions that treaties can't override the Constitution, technically it's not what Art 6 actually says. LAWS must be pursuant to the Constitution... but it's a separate clause when it discusses treaties. I've always seen this as somewhat of an oversight. But I can see why no court would rule otherwise.


Some decisions are rather tortured like Texas v White because there's some political imperative to reach a conclusion. yet curiously when asked about secession Scalia didn't resort to Texas v White but claimed it was settled by the Civil War. Uh? My belief is if a ruling contradicts the clear writing in the Constitution... then it's suspect. You seem oblivious to the machinations of a politicized court. Again, some rulings have been overturned, some are tortured in their logic, and some are based on thinly disguised political doctrines to advance an agenda

As I said, given the near impossibility it is to amend the Constitution, the game is to strategize how to nudge the court to interpret it to benefit special interests. Efforts to expand corporate personhood originally are based on a bastardization of the 14th. Heller officially bastardized the Second to invent a personal right... all the previous decisions connecting the 2ed to the militia not withstanding. Bork and Scalia were at war with the Ninth.

The bounds of the Constitution have been expanded since Hamilton proposed a national bank. Patents have expanded past the stated reason in the Art 1. Common Defense has expanded and the US is a global power with forces round the globe. The US and Interstate highway systems go way beyond postal roads. Some bills based on the Commerce clause bear little resemblance to its intent. And so if there is a need the rationale can probably be found to implement it. You imprison your imagination when you hold up past decisions as if they were passed down from on high on a slab.

[eniwetok]

43. The bounds of the Constitution have been expanded since Hamilton proposed a national bank.

Sorry... I should go back further to when Madison proposed in the first days of the First Congress that the government set up a system of hospitals for disabled seamen because it was incidental to commerce. From Art 1

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;


Talk about a stretch. The better basis for this would be Congress's power to tax and spend for the General Welfare.

[WillowTree]

33. Actually, it may be OK for the individual states to require tax returns to be on the ballot.

Remember, we don't have a countrywide presidential election, we have 50 statewide elections and the states can run them as they see fit so long as none of their requirements are in conflict with the Constitution. So, technically, I think state-by-state requirements for tax info may fly.

[onenote]

35. No it wouldn't

Ballot access rules have to be reasonably related to a legitimate state function in running elections. Nothing about a candidate's financial history, medical history, criminal record etc etc. is relevant. States can limit who gets on the ballot through petition/signature requirements etc because that allows them to run elections efficiently. But even those sorts of restrictions have frequently been struck down when they are viewed as unnecessary to carry out the state's role in managing elections.

Under your formulation, what couldn't a state require as a ballot access condition?

[WillowTree]

37. Hmmmmm.........of course you're right.

That'll teach me to answer something when I'm hurrying to leave the office. Thanks for setting it straight.

[LanternWaste]

34. I agree with half your statement. The other half is a legal and logical fallacy.

I agree with half your statement. The other half is a legal and logical fallacy. One more time, and with rational thought.

[BlueMTexpat]

8. Absolutely.

But it seems that Trump voters don't give a sh*t!

[ToxMarz]

9. Sad that it should have to be a requirement

One would think nobody would vote for someone who refused to release their tax returns and expected to be a viable candidate for President. Stupid voters!

[They_Live]

11. And a world geography exam, US Constitution exam,

psychology screening, etc.

Any candidate should have to pass the same exam given for Citizenship...at the very least.

[TNNurse]

12. How would you get those currently elected to vote

against their own self-interest? They are not going to want to expose themselves to criticism and not being able to keep their jobs.

[hughee99]

16. You'd have to do what they always do, exempt

Current office holders, and only require this of new candidates. If you have a "grandfather clause" you might have a chance since this would only affect opponents and not incumbents.

[bdamomma]

14. Tax returns a must

to show, he should not get preferential treatment. Also there is reason why he is not showing them and not because what he said they were being audited, it's because he has NO money.

[TicaTwo]

15. Absolutely n/t

[MineralMan]

17. It's a good idea, but will require legislation.

Right now, I don't see that as possible, frankly.

[Angry Dragon]

18. good idea ...... never get to the floor

[TrekLuver]

39. AGREE 100%

[sarcasmo]

40. All candidates need to be vetted in regards to money owed, and what, countries/mobsters

the money is owed.