California law professor Rex Grady here writes that SB 27, the bill to require presidential primary candidates to reveal their tax returns or be omitted from the presidential primary ballots, is not constitutional. The op-ed is in the Santa Rosa Press-Democrat, which is one of the largest newspapers in the State Senate district of Mike McGuire, the sponsor of SB 27.
Grady only mentions the U.S. Constitution. He and other commentators never seem to remember the California Constitution, which says that the Secretary of State shall put all “recognized” candidates on the presidential primary ballots. Article II, sec. 5(a).
California Governor Gavin Newsom has twelve days to act on the bill. The twelve-day period starts when the legislature sends the bill to him. Although the bill has passed, it still hasn’t been sent to the Governor.
UPDATE: Dan Walters, a well-known commentator and reporter for California government, has this article in Cal Matters, predicting that Governor Newsom will sign the bill, but that it will be held unconstitutional.
The goal of California Democrats is to supress Republican turnout in the primary.
Since the emoluments clause applies to all federal officials, shouldn’t US rereesentatives and senators also be required to publicly disclose their returns, it would be reasonable to require past returns since they have been in Congress and beyond. Nancy Pelosi should release the last 41 years of her returns.
There is a big mountain of evidence that says that the income tax is unconstitutional, or, is at least applied in an unconstitutional manner in most cases, as in that most people aren’t legally subject to the income tax, although many falsely assume that they are. See Brushaber v Pacific Railroad and Stanton v Baltic Mining.
Well the real candidates for the presidential election are the electors not the nominee of the party, thus this isn’t unconstitutional because they’re demanding returns from some one other than the actual candidates.
Oh, tosh and tommyrot, Jim. I get the idea, and if your precious Cheetoh had followed a 50-plus-year convention, this bill never would have been written.
==
Balderdash, Andy. (You forgot to write “taxation is theft,” though, didn’t you?) Brushaber et al don’t claim what you seem to think they claim. In fact, both cases CLEARLY uphold the constitutionality AND the general applicability of the 16th Amendment. Feel free to go play in traffic. Good libertarian that you likely are, I presume you don’t have a driver’s license.
==
Andrew, not true. (Huh?)
Candidates are actual candidates. Electors may be the “actual voters,” if that’s what you’re getting at, vs. the popular vote, but no, candidates are the actual candidates.
CON LAW 001
What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. 277, 325 (1867); U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 778, 829 (1995).
A law must be tested by its operation and effect. Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 708-709 (1931); U.S. Term Limits, Inc., supra, 514 U.S., at 831.
—
Obvious attempt to add to Prez qualification — IE subvert the USA Const by the RED communist hacks in the CA legislature.
NET [repeat NET] TAX GETTER gangs –
Govt Officers/Employees
Govt Contractors
Govt Creditors [getting interest]
GOVT WELFARE folks [via so-called *transfer payments*]
Est now 35-40 percent of all voters — esp in gerrymander primaries.
plus Some foreign gangs/elites.
—
End 2019 ALL govts debt — will be about a mere $ 40 TRILLION — a claim on ALL assets – houses, stores, factories, land, personal property.
means ZERO to the USELESS brain dead media —
UNTIL CRISIS Day – enough folks detect that the USA/States/Locals are bankrupt banana republics.
— will make the OCT 1929 CRASH seem trivial.
Socratic Gadfly, the Supreme Court ruled that the income tax is supposed to be on foreigners, or people engaging in international commerce, or on corporate profits. The income does does not apply to American citizens working within the 50 states. The government has been lying about the application of the income tax for many years.
There is also no requirement for American citizens to have or use Social Security Numbers, or to pay into Social Security.
Andrew, the California bill has nothing to do with presidential electors, because it has nothing to do with the general election. It only affects the California presidential primaries.
One reason that ALL candidates should be selected by convention and not be primaries. Candidate selection is a party function. Thus only party members should be voting.