Release of tax returns as a requirement

[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).