It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

California introduces bill forcing presidential candidates to release taxes

page: 14
13
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

It lays out the electoral college and how it operates.

The 24th amendment goes beyond poll taxes. It also says any other taxes in addition to poll tax. Since taxes cant be used to prevent a person from voting explain how requiring a persons tax returns, and what they paid and where their money came from, isnt a violation?

I fail to see how a persons tax records can be used to justify ballot access since the intent of the law is not to prove they paid taxes but where their money came from. Secondly I dont see how a state can pass a law requiring citizens of another state to submit tax returns for review from the federal level. the FEC already establishes financial requirements for candidates and this law goes beyond federal law and when there is a conflict between federal and state law, federal law applies.

To me the state is encroaching upon federal rights in that regard.
edit on 17-9-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96


You referring to Arizona SB 1070? The Supreme Court ruled on that which makes my point. If your tighty whities are in a bunch file and amicus brief and let the courts see who is right.



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra




The 24th amendment goes beyond poll taxes. It also says any other taxes in addition to poll tax. Since taxes cant be used to prevent a person from voting explain how requiring a persons tax returns, and what they paid and where their money came from, isnt a violation?


It is and they don't care.

They will defend whatever the Peoples Republic of California does.



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 01:41 PM
link   

"Our top priority is making sure the voters of California have the information they need before they go into the voting booth," Democratic state Sen. Mike McGuire -- a lead sponsor of the bill -- told CNN. "If President Trump doesn't release his tax returns voluntarily, California will do it for him."


From the op.

Political hackery legalized!



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Trump is the first not to. The first and only one.
The practice was started by Richard Nixon and every president since then has.
Gerald Ford released summary tax data instead of his actual return so you may be considered half correct. But none have refused to reveal earnings and sources like trump has.



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

It's actually a non-issue. A candidate could release completely bogus tax returns and no one could prove they are bogus. There's nothing in the proposed language that requires a candidate to authorize the IRS to authenticate the returns.

These legislators know that. They aren't really interested in forcing transparency.

When I renew my IBR payment plan for my federal student loans, I have to authorize the IRS to release the info directly to my lender.

This proposed legislation isn't that...it's pretty much worthless posturing.



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I know what Article II part I does and says and it has nothing to do with California's election laws.

I know what Amendment XII does (and told you why it has no bearing on this question).

The State of California is not imposing any sort of tax in order to vote which is what Amendment XXIV concerns. It doesn't speak to tax returns or financial statements or Primaries. Your point is absurd on its face. (And pretty pathetically reaching I might add, for someone that understands the law.)

There, I've dealt with your comments, now, can you please point out what part of the Constitution guarantees anyone the right to be on a Ballot, Primary or General?

There are candidates in every Presidential election that aren't on the General Ballots in all States. Are you saying that's unconstitutional?
edit on 17-9-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Ford did not release his tax forms. He releas4ed a summary and it is in fact not the same since it excluded the detailed info.

The FEC requires a financial disclosure and this was provided by Trump.

there is no law requiring a person release their tax returns and IRS law prohibits it by anyone other than the candidate himself / herself.

If you guys cant accept that, that is your problem. You lost the section and still cant accept that fact. Passing these laws to target Trump is ok for you now but the moment that law is used against a Democrat you guys are going to bitch to high heaven. Just as you have done when Trump was elected and inherited all the powers Obama accumulated over the years thanks to Democrats.

Tax returns are not legally required to be disclosed.

Get over it and accept it.


Also - in 1992 Bill Clinton refused to release his tax returns.
edit on 17-9-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra




Passing these laws to target Trump is ok for you now but the moment that law is used against a Democrat you guys are going to bitch to high heaven.

If the bill passes, it will indeed be used "against" every Democrat who wants to be on the California primary ballot.

edit on 9/17/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You are saying that a citizen can present a fraudulent Federal document and there's no crime associated with that?

I want to make sure.



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra




Passing these laws to target Trump is ok for you now but the moment that law is used against a Democrat you guys are going to bitch to high heaven.

If the bill passes, it will indeed be used "against" every Democrat who wants to be on the California primary ballot.


Lol ok...



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You are saying that a citizen can present a fraudulent Federal document and there's no crime associated with that?

I want to make sure.


Using the Clintons, both of them, as examples - correct.

There is no crime associated with it.



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

What's funny?
Do you think Democrats will not be required to release their tax returns?



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You are saying that a citizen can present a fraudulent Federal document and there's no crime associated with that?

I want to make sure.


It depends. Will the candidate have to sign a statement declaring they are true copies? Will they have to provide certified copies?

The language in the proposed bill does not require them to be authenticated in any way.

Even if it was a crime, no one could prove it.

***

ETA: In fact, when candidates voluntarily release their tax returns, none of us have any way of knowing whether they are true copies or not.
edit on 9/17/2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Any number of reasons why that's wrong including Federal and State statutes that I'm not going to bother to look up.

And are you so sure that a document submitted as true can't be verified after it's submitted?



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Any number of reasons why that's wrong including Federal and State statutes that I'm not going to bother to look up.

And are you so sure that a document submitted as true can't be verified after it's submitted?


In this case, privacy laws would prevent the IRS from verifying any information without the taxpayer's consent.



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

If the taxpayer submitted their document as bona fide in an official government filing, you're saying that California couldn't verify, not the details, but that the document was authentic?

Are you sure?



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: MotherMayEye

If the taxpayer submitted their document as bona fide in an official government filing, you're saying that California couldn't verify, not the details, but that the document was authentic?

Are you sure?


Verifying the returns is tantamount to verifying the details within.

The IRS privacy/disclosure laws are not substantively different that Hawaii's vital records disclosure laws, with regard to this proposed legislation. Trump would have to authorize the IRS to verify their authenticity.

If you were to ask the Hawaii Department of Health to verify Obama's birth certificate -- that he allegedly already made public -- they would tell you they cannot because it is private.



edit on 9/17/2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Actually ...



IRC 6103(d) provides that return information may be shared with state agencies responsible for tax administration. The state agency must request this information in writing, and the request must be signed by an official designated to request tax information.


IRS - Disclosure Laws



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: MotherMayEye

If the taxpayer submitted their document as bona fide in an official government filing, you're saying that California couldn't verify, not the details, but that the document was authentic?

Are you sure?


I want to expand on this.

Technically, both the FOIA and Hawaii's open records act (UIPA) require that records and information that have already been made public are not protected by privacy laws and should be disclosed upon request.

And that makes sense. In the interest of the public and in the spirit of those acts, the public has a right to oversee government and verify the records and information presented to them are authentic.

However, the Hawaii Department of Health claims Obama's birth certificate is still protected by privacy laws. The only logical conclusion is that we have not seen the vital birth records they have on "file" for Obama.

Likewise, if Trump released tax returns and a person submitted a FOIA request to the IRS for those records BUT they refused citing privacy laws, it would be logical to assume that whatever Trump made public is not what the IRS has on record.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join