Release of tax returns as a requirement

[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.