Posted on 08/06/2019 11:18:57 AM PDT by Innovative
President Donald Trump sued California Tuesday challenging a state law that requires candidates for president to disclose income tax returns before they can appear on the state's primary ballot.
The federal lawsuit from Trump and his campaign is the latest move by the President to resist efforts to turn over his tax returns.
The law adds an "unconstitutional qualification" to the fixed set of qualifications for the presidency set forward in the Constitution and violates the First Amendment, Trump's lawyer William Consovoy argued in the lawsuit filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of California.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Didn’t he do this a week or two ago?
I just saw this article on CNN today.
I think Judicial Watch also sued, about a week ago.
Didn’t he do this a week or two ago?
I believe that was a group from CA.
This is one case where I wish there were punitive damages.
This is so frivolous that I’d like to see California lose a billion or so of it’s tax receipts over it.
Let other states know what’s in store for them if they try the similar nonsense.
I think Judicial Watch also sued, about a week ago.
*****************************************
This is a wise move on the part of Trump’s legal team. It’s a viable safeguard in case a California based judge dismisses the Judicial Watch suit using “lack of standing” as the basis.
That’s the thanks President Trump gets for putting aside politics and delivers the relief cash to California.
Besides all the other arguments, Trump’s CA taxes are, what, $0.00?
He doesn’t live in California.
Considering tax returns isn’t a requirement to run for president, this is entirely illegal. Unless they are requiring it for the primaries only, in which it’s irrelevant anyway.
California taxes everyone who spends a single day in the state on business.
Here's Judicial Watch, the source of the suit. Much, much less contrived and factual.
“Didn’t he do this a week or two ago?”
Judicial Watch sued a few days ago on behalf of four California voters, each from a different party ...
For cryin’ out loud, nobody actually seems to be enforcing the ACTUAL Constitutional requirements for being President, so why should this stand?
“This is a wise move on the part of Trump’s legal team. It’s a viable safeguard in case a California based judge dismisses the Judicial Watch suit using “lack of standing” as the basis.”
exactly ... if anyone has standing, it’s the current President who is running for re-election ...
Doesn’t pass even the low bar of having a “rational relationship” to the activity being regulated. Ridiculous.
Why bother just give it to them in perpetuity. Would not look good if Trump won all 50 States. I believe the real motivation for Nukems ridiculous bill is to hurt the down ballot. There is no other reason IMO.
Time for a Cally rally.
Waiting for liberal Judge to vote against Trump.
The main thing about this is not even about President Trump most likely - it is to further depress GOP turnout to prevent them from recapturing lost House seats and other local offices and pick up many more. No GOP Senate candidate and no GOP candidates for multiple other offices no doubt helped them capture several House seats in 2018 - some of which they won by very narrow margins - even a slight depression of turnout was enough to have made the difference.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.