Judicial Watch Sues Over California Law Requiring Presidential Candidates Appearing On Primary Ballot To Disclose Tax Returns

[–] [Deleted] -1 points (+1|-2)

First, it may not be constitutional. Second, it sets a “slippery slope” precedent. Today we require tax returns, but what would be next?

Pretty goood idea to check candidates are above board and have paid taxes. The slippery slope argument is bogus.

Judicial watch don't elaborate on why "it may not be constitutional".

[–] [Deleted] 2 points (+2|-0)

The suit alleges that the law unconstitutionally adds a new qualification for candidates for president.

[–] [Deleted] 0 points (+0|-0)

Which bit of the constitution disallows that?

[–] [Deleted] 1 points (+2|-1)

Really?
Article II, Section 1:

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Load more (1 comment)

Judicial Watch Sues Over California Law Requiring Presidential Candidates Appearing On Primary Ballot To Disclose Tax Returns

14 comments

/s/USPolitics