Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: "Trumps refusal to disclose his taxes prompts clever legislation in California" [View all]Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)10. What in the constitution prevents this?
States are generally free to create their own elections laws, provided that they are non-discriminatory. Since the law would be applied to all candidates, it is inherently non-discriminatory.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
101 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
"Trumps refusal to disclose his taxes prompts clever legislation in California" [View all]
Madam45for2923
Dec 2016
OP
Yes, Cha! Hope more States will follow. We must never have a pres candidate w/o their taxes!
Madam45for2923
Dec 2016
#2
I seriously doubt Trump will run for re-election if he manages to finish his first term.
maddiemom
Dec 2016
#13
Congress is full of money grubbing Trumpists so don't count on them to uphold the Constit.
wordpix
Dec 2016
#69
So you are claiming that anyone who is 35, natural born and 14 years a resident can appear on the
whopis01
Dec 2016
#62
Do you think a state could pass a law saying a Presidential candidate has to be 45?
former9thward
Dec 2016
#64
To answer that question you have to start with what he Constitution says regarding thr
stevenleser
Dec 2016
#67
Nope, read Article II section I. Voters are voting to select electors and Article II Section I
stevenleser
Dec 2016
#60
Because that is what the election is for in each state. You are not voting for President
stevenleser
Dec 2016
#68
California is the only state that requires charities (501 C's) to file Schedule B's of their 990
underpants
Dec 2016
#52
i think this is possible constitutionally, but republicans write off california anyway.
unblock
Dec 2016
#15
They can write off states, but if they don't show up on the ballot in those states, it will be
Squinch
Dec 2016
#29
"... not the best interests of any business venture or investment fund."
mahatmakanejeeves
Dec 2016
#22
I applaud them - but it's all for naught as long as the Electoral College decides.
tenorly
Dec 2016
#23
If they are not on the state ballet, they do not get the states electoral votes.
revmclaren
Dec 2016
#31
Sure. But I doubt we'll ever see bills like this from red/swing states (where it could cost the GOP)
tenorly
Dec 2016
#34
every blue state should consider similar laws tied for all running in all primary and main elections
beachbum bob
Dec 2016
#25
hell why not make a requirement that unless every single party candidate released full disclosure
beachbum bob
Dec 2016
#28
See Article II Section I of the Constitution regarding the choosing of electors. nt
stevenleser
Dec 2016
#65
Love it. When its put on the ballot here in Cali, I will be voting YES on it nt
iluvtennis
Dec 2016
#53
Nope, they can't. Similar to what i said to someone else above, restrictions on the
stevenleser
Dec 2016
#79
your argument that choosing electors equals CA requiring tax disclosure doesn't work
wordpix
Dec 2016
#78
Yep. What came out in the 2000 recount is that this is one of those ticking timebombs in the
stevenleser
Dec 2016
#86
has to happen in red states, NY and CA won't matter. It's winner take all, remember. n/t
Hamlette
Dec 2016
#90
Not sure! Makes sense to start from the primaries. We need transparency starting then.
Madam45for2923
Dec 2016
#94
States don't have airspace. All US airspace is governed and controlled by the FAA.
Calista241
Dec 2016
#95