Bloomberg's tax returns

[Barabbas]

The Constitution sets eligibility requirements. It says nothing about how to get on the ballot except that it is up to each state on how to select that state's Electors.

We seem to be talking about two different things.

What you're describing is why, right up to the 1860's, not all states even participated in popular elections for president, or even electoral college electors. South Carolina, I believe, was the last state to join the "popular vote" movement.

But, if we are going to have a popular vote as the means of advising the electors, you can't prohibit a candidate for being under 43, for example, since the constitution sets an age limit. You can't stop a candidate for not being a land owner, because no such requirement exists in the constitution. You can't stop a candidate for not showing his/her tax returns, because that's not in the constitution.

But, apparently, you can get on the ballot in Colorado for $500 if you say you're a Democrat, but it takes $1,000 if you say you're an independent. In California, you have to get almost 200,000 people to sign a petition to allow you on the ballot if you are an Independent, but you only have to have the party say you can get on if you are a Democrat or Republican.

Those are the differences of which I'm speaking - getting on the ballot.

 

[awpitt]

We seem to be talking about two different things.

But, if we are going to have a popular vote as the means of advising the electors, you can't prohibit a candidate for being under 43, for example, since the constitution sets an age limit.

I was already aware of that.

You can't stop a candidate for not being a land owner, because no such requirement exists in the constitution. You can't stop a candidate for not showing his/her tax returns, because that's not in the constitution.

The Constitution is silent on this. There are no requirements set here. Nor, are there any prohibitions set here.

But, apparently, you can get on the ballot in Colorado for $500 if you say you're a Democrat, but it takes $1,000 if you say you're an independent. In California, you have to get almost 200,000 people to sign a petition to allow you on the ballot if you are an Independent, but you only have to have the party say you can get on if you are a Democrat or Republican.

Again, the Constitution is silent on this. There are no requirements set here. Nor, are there any prohibitions set here. As is the case with tax returns, the Constitution doesn't say they can require tax returns nor does the Constitution say they can't require tax returns.

The Constitution does say that it is up to the states to determine how they appoint their Electors. That includes the method (elections), and procedures (ballot access) within that method.

 

[glhs837]

That. I get a chuckle out of all the chuckleheads that think they'll find something "bad" in Trump's (or Bloombertg's) tax returns that teams of tax lawyers and accountants have not. Same chuckleheads apparently believe that tax returns document someone's net worth too.

It's not about finding illegal stuff. It's about finding stuff they can morally beat them over the head with. "OMG, this guy paid $10,000 for haircuts in 2015!!!!!"

 

[Barabbas]

I was already aware of that.





The Constitution is silent on this. There are no requirements set here. Nor, are there any prohibitions set here.




Again, the Constitution is silent on this. There are no requirements set here. Nor, are there any prohibitions set here. As is the case with tax returns, the Constitution doesn't say they can require tax returns nor does the Constitution say they can't require tax returns.

The Constitution does say that it is up to the states to determine how they appoint their Electors. That includes the method (elections), and procedures (ballot access) within that method.

So you believe if Utah made a requirement that one must own at least 100 acres of land in Utah to be on the ballot, since the constitution is silent on this, it would be a constitutionally-acceptable thing to have on their list of requirements?

What if Kansas decided that if a candidate had already served at least 14 years total in Congress, they were no longer eligible for office? Since the Constitution is silent on that, would that be acceptable?

 

[awpitt]

So you believe if Utah made a requirement that one must own at least 100 acres of land in Utah to be on the ballot, since the constitution is silent on this, it would be a constitutionally-acceptable thing to have on their list of requirements?

What if Kansas decided that if a candidate had already served at least 14 years total in Congress, they were no longer eligible for office? Since the Constitution is silent on that, would that be acceptable?

They can try but those would end up in court where constitutionality would be tested.

 

[Barabbas]

They can try but those would end up in court where constitutionality would be tested.

And, how would that be different from limiting someone who does not provide their tax returns?

 

[PeoplesElbow]

For those that dont know there was no such thing as a tax return when the constitution was written. Just fyi

 

[awpitt]

And, how would that be different from limiting someone who does not provide their tax returns?

I'm not saying it's the same or different. I am saying that states can set their rules for ballot access. If someone doesn't like it, they can take it to court where a determination will be made as to the constitutionality of the rule.

 

[vraiblonde]

It's not about finding illegal stuff. It's about finding stuff they can morally beat them over the head with. "OMG, this guy paid $10,000 for haircuts in 2015!!!!!"

This ^^

I can't be the only person who doesn't give a crap about these people's tax returns, no matter what Party they are. The media is telling the bots that they should care and should riot every day over this nonsense, but I refuse to get sucked into that.

 

[workerbee]

So much bullshit over nothing.

The only people that need to see his taxes work at the IRS.

Which would have been leaked by now if there was a problem!