user-photo
Amoroso

Author Bio.

California’s Attempt to get Trump’s Tax Returns…FAIL

Chalk one up for the rule of law and the Constitution (at least temporarily),  thanks to a federal judge on Thursday who slapped an injunction against California’s bogus law requiring presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns in order to be on the presidential primary ballot.

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

U.S. District Judge Morrison England Jr. saw passed the political gamesmanship by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom’s “unconstitutional” law, forcing presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns in order to be on the presidential primary ballot is NOT a requirement under the Constitution.

In order for an individual to run for the office of the presidency, he or she must be a natural-born United States citizen who is at least 35 years old and who has lived as a resident of the US for 14 years. These are the only legal requirements for the position, that’s it!

Judge England issued the temporary injunction, saying Trump and other candidates would face “irreparable harm without temporary relief” if a decision wasn’t made. The judge will issue his final ruling in the next few days.

According to the Associated Press, the egregious law signed by Newsom in July would require presidential candidates to submit 5-years worth of tax returns to California by November in order to be on the March 2020 primary ballot.

The state attorney’s argued that California had a right to determine ballot access rules. However, Trump’s attorney Jay Sekulow applauded the judge’s decision stating.

“We are encouraged that the federal court has tentatively concluded that a preliminary injunction should be granted. We look forward to the court’s written order,” Sekulow said in a statement. “It remains our position that the law is unconstitutional because states are not permitted to add additional requirements for candidates for president, and that the law violated citizens’ 1st Amendment right of association.”

And indeed it is, imagine if this actually became law setting a new precedent that would in effect become an open season in changing the tenet of the Constitution thus the rule of law, bypassing Congress whose responsibility is to create legislation, including amending the Constitution, when needed.

If California can dictate through state law, what requirements a presidential candidate must have in order to be on the ballot, why not a set of different requirements from the state of Texas, or perhaps Oklahoma, maybe Philadelphia. Imagine 50 different requirements from 50 states demanding high-school yearbooks, medical records, military discharge papers, college records, etc, etc.

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Of course, the Newsom gang disagrees with the judge’s ruling saying, “We remain firm in our belief that SB 27 is constitutional and provides invaluable transparency for voters as they decide who will hold the most powerful office in the United States,” California Attorney General Xavier Padilla said in a statement. “We will determine our next course of action after the judge issues his written ruling.”

Tim Murtaugh, director of communications for the President’s 2020 campaign, previously told The Sacramento Bee that “the Constitution is clear on the qualifications for someone to serve as president and states cannot add additional requirements on their own.”

He added that the bill “violates the 1st Amendment right of the association since California can’t tell political parties which candidates their members can or cannot vote for in a primary election.”

The California “law” is similar to the one in New York State authored by another progressive Democratic governor, attempting to thwart the re-election of President Trump in 2020 anyway they can. It’s the same political methodology Democrats have used since the moment Trump won the presidency…defame, accuse, disrupt, obstruct, delay, the Presidents WINNING AGENDA, which has Democrats in a daily tizzy.


2 Comments
  1. Post Author

    the only reason they think that the bill is constitional is that they have never read the constitution.

  2. Post Author

    Legal or not legal notwithstanding, any reasonably intelligent person has to wonder what Mr. Trump is hiding by refusing to disclose his tax returns. He is supposed to be representative of all the people and thus be transparent in his financial dealings so as not to cloud the issue as to whether there is anything going on that could be perceived as illegal, immoral or just in violation of basic or national laws.

Leave a Reply