and have paid taxes.
Lot's of people in the US don't pay taxes. Should some lifelong welfare recipient be barred from election? Well, maybe, but that's not what they want to know. They want to know Trumps tax returns.
The tax returns in question are all approved and accepted by the Federal government. Whatever great reductions someone may have taken advantage of would be an indicator of the law and not the candidate.
The US Constitution sets requirements for presidential election. A state adding to those requirements could infringe upon the rights of the other states.
> and have paid taxes.
Lot's of people in the US don't pay taxes. Should some lifelong welfare recipient be barred from election? Well, maybe,
but that's not what they want to know. They want to know Trumps tax returns.
The tax returns in question are all approved and accepted by the Federal government. Whatever great reductions someone may have taken advantage of would be an indicator of the law and not the candidate.
The US Constitution sets requirements for presidential election. A state adding to those requirements could infringe
upon the rights of the other states.
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".