By HANK BERRIEN
May 3, 2019
On Thursday, the California state Senate took a shot at President Trump, passing a bill that would require p**********l candidates to release five years' worth of income tax returns or not appear on the primary b****t.

Pete Buttigieg Releases 10 Years Of Tax Returns

As AP reported, a similar bill was passed in 2017, but Gov. Jerry Brown, who himself would not release his tax returns while in office, vetoed the bill, claiming it was unconstitutional. Brown stated, "Today we require tax returns, but what would be next? Five years of health records? A certified birth certificate? High school report cards? And will these requirements vary depending on which political party is in power?"

But new California Governor Gavin Newsom may well sign the bill, which is coauthored by state Sen. Mike McGuire and state Sen. Scott Wiener, who authored the 2017 bill.

In 2017, McGuire stated, "For decades, every president has put their personal beliefs aside and put our country first and released their returns. The American people shouldn’t be in the dark about their president’s financial entanglements." Wiener added, "This bill is about giving the American people the honesty and t***sparency they deserve from anyone who wishes to serve as their president.”

This week, McGuire stated, “We believe that President Trump, if he truly doesn’t have anything to hide, should step up and release his tax returns.” He said recently, “President Trump’s refusal to release his income tax returns has broken a time-honored, bipartisan tradition which has weakened our democracy and his jaw dropping business conflicts have now put the security of our nation at risk.”

Last December, McGuire ranted, “V**ers not only deserve full disclosure of their leader’s tax returns, they should be entitled to them. If President Trump had released his tax returns we would know why he’s ignoring intelligence agencies and snuggling up to the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, who has been linked to the brutal k*****g of Jamal Khashoggi. T***sparency is a nonpartisan issue and it’s time to put the speculation to bed and bring to light any conflicts of interest that could drive an American president into the arms of a foreign power. It’s time to make President Trump’s tax returns public.”

Newsom spokesman Brian Ferguson said the bill “would be evaluated on its own merits.”

McGuire noted that Newsom has released his tax returns, adding, “I never want to put words into his mouth, but here’s what I’ll say: Gov. Newsom has led by example.” He said, “We can all debate on the floor about the constitutionality of this bill. But we also have to look at what makes our democracy strong. The foundation of any successful government is t***sparency.”

AP wrote, “Candidates would have to submit tax returns to the secretary of state’s office, which would work with the candidates to redact some information before posting the returns online.”

Similar bills have been proposed in New Jersey and Washington state.

According to a Morning Consult poll in April, a bare majority of respondents, 51%, want to see Trump’s tax returns released.
My comment;
(And they are all Socialists because they don't like anyone who is wealthy).
This does not appear Constitutional; (Article 1, Section 2, Clause 1.) "the E*****rs in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for E*****rs of the most numerous Branch of the State legislature."

James Wilson summarized the constitutional convention as follows: "It was difficult to form any uniform rule of qualifications for all the states." Unnecessary innovations, he thought, should also be avoided: "It would be very hard & disagreeable for the same persons, at the same time, to v**e for representatives in the State Legislature and be excluded from a v**e for those in the Natl. Legislature." The constitution gives authority for determining e*****r qualifications to the states. But we are not talking about e*****r qualifications here. We are talking about a state(s) preventing a candidate from being on the primary b****t. The state authority is superseded only insofar as the Constitution itself forbids the denial of equal protection and the exclusion of v**ers on specific grounds (i.e., 15th, 19th, 24th, 26th Amendments).

Article 1, section 4, allows Congress to "make or alter such [state] Regulations" regarding "the Times, Places and Manner of holding e******ns" but not who v**es. Both Hamilton and Madison argued in the Federalist Papers that the state would determine who could v**e but not who could run for National office such as President. Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15 (1969); the Court applied the Equal Protection Clause to invalidate state regulations that excluded classes of v**ers from the franchise. In Oregon v. Mitchell (1970) the court upheld congressional regulation of federal e******n over contrary state laws.

Tashijian v. Republican Party of Connecticut (1986) determined that a closed primary violated freedom of association and therefore conflicted with Connecticut Republican Party rule that permitted independent v**ers to v**e in Republican Primaries for federal and statewide offices. The court struck down California's blanket primary law in California Democratic Party v. Jones (2000). Consequently, Tashijian determined party rules did not violate the E*****r Qualification Clause. The court added that primaries are subject to these clauses.

There will surely be a court challenge to this ill-advised v**e by the CA legislature as it has overstepped it bounds.

By HANK BERRIEN
May 3, 2019
On Thursday, the California state Senate took a shot at President Trump, passing a bill that would require p**********l candidates to release five years' worth of income tax returns or not appear on the primary b****t.

Pete Buttigieg Releases 10 Years Of Tax Returns

As AP reported, a similar bill was passed in 2017, but Gov. Jerry Brown, who himself would not release his tax returns while in office, vetoed the bill, claiming it was unconstitutional. Brown stated, "Today we require tax returns, but what would be next? Five years of health records? A certified birth certificate? High school report cards? And will these requirements vary depending on which political party is in power?"

But new California Governor Gavin Newsom may well sign the bill, which is coauthored by state Sen. Mike McGuire and state Sen. Scott Wiener, who authored the 2017 bill.

In 2017, McGuire stated, "For decades, every president has put their personal beliefs aside and put our country first and released their returns. The American people shouldn’t be in the dark about their president’s financial entanglements." Wiener added, "This bill is about giving the American people the honesty and t***sparency they deserve from anyone who wishes to serve as their president.”

This week, McGuire stated, “We believe that President Trump, if he truly doesn’t have anything to hide, should step up and release his tax returns.” He said recently, “President Trump’s refusal to release his income tax returns has broken a time-honored, bipartisan tradition which has weakened our democracy and his jaw dropping business conflicts have now put the security of our nation at risk.”

Last December, McGuire ranted, “V**ers not only deserve full disclosure of their leader’s tax returns, they should be entitled to them. If President Trump had released his tax returns we would know why he’s ignoring intelligence agencies and snuggling up to the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, who has been linked to the brutal k*****g of Jamal Khashoggi. T***sparency is a nonpartisan issue and it’s time to put the speculation to bed and bring to light any conflicts of interest that could drive an American president into the arms of a foreign power. It’s time to make President Trump’s tax returns public.”

Newsom spokesman Brian Ferguson said the bill “would be evaluated on its own merits.”

McGuire noted that Newsom has released his tax returns, adding, “I never want to put words into his mouth, but here’s what I’ll say: Gov. Newsom has led by example.” He said, “We can all debate on the floor about the constitutionality of this bill. But we also have to look at what makes our democracy strong. The foundation of any successful government is t***sparency.”

AP wrote, “Candidates would have to submit tax returns to the secretary of state’s office, which would work with the candidates to redact some information before posting the returns online.”

Similar bills have been proposed in New Jersey and Washington state.

According to a Morning Consult poll in April, a bare majority of respondents, 51%, want to see Trump’s tax returns released.
My comment;
(And they are all Socialists because they don't like anyone who is wealthy).
This does not appear Constitutional; (Article 1, Section 2, Clause 1.) "the E*****rs in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for E*****rs of the most numerous Branch of the State legislature."

James Wilson summarized the constitutional convention as follows: "It was difficult to form any uniform rule of qualifications for all the states." Unnecessary innovations, he thought, should also be avoided: "It would be very hard & disagreeable for the same persons, at the same time, to v**e for representatives in the State Legislature and be excluded from a v**e for those in the Natl. Legislature." The constitution gives authority for determining e*****r qualifications to the states. But we are not talking about e*****r qualifications here. We are talking about a state(s) preventing a candidate from being on the primary b****t. The state authority is superseded only insofar as the Constitution itself forbids the denial of equal protection and the exclusion of v**ers on specific grounds (i.e., 15th, 19th, 24th, 26th Amendments).

Article 1, section 4, allows Congress to "make or alter such [state] Regulations" regarding "the Times, Places and Manner of holding e******ns" but not who v**es. Both Hamilton and Madison argued in the Federalist Papers that the state would determine who could v**e but not who could run for National office such as President. Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15 (1969); the Court applied the Equal Protection Clause to invalidate state regulations that excluded classes of v**ers from the franchise. In Oregon v. Mitchell (1970) the court upheld congressional regulation of federal e******n over contrary state laws.

Tashijian v. Republican Party of Connecticut (1986) determined that a closed primary violated freedom of association and therefore conflicted with Connecticut Republican Party rule that permitted independent v**ers to v**e in Republican Primaries for federal and statewide offices. The court struck down California's blanket primary law in California Democratic Party v. Jones (2000). Consequently, Tashijian determined party rules did not violate the E*****r Qualification Clause. The court added that primaries are subject to these clauses.

There will surely be a court challenge to this ill-advised v**e by the CA legislature as it has overstepped it bounds.

They violate federal i*********n l*w as a matter of policy and get clean away with it, so now they're emboldened to pull this malarkey as well.

A rule change like this isn't theirs to enact, not on that level, and any attempt to change this via Congress would never clear the Senate, let alone the Supreme Court.

Perhaps California should take their "world's eighth largest economy" and secede from the U.S. They can be their own country, we can withdraw our military assets and move them further north, cut off all our non-retirement Social Security and other non-retirement social services spending, Homeland Security, education, law enforcement, FEMA and other federal taxpayer funding to "the world's eighth largest economy" and let them enjoy their open borders and sanctuary policies with Gavin Newsome as their president.