Thursday, March 30, 2017
Disclosure kills department:
Hasen has an article at politico discussing how democrats in control of state legislatures could pass bills to make Trump disclose his tax returns as a condition of ballot access.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/donald-trump-tax-returns-release-214950
He admits that such a plan would be of dubious constitutionality, citing Term Limits v Thornton
(states can't add extra qualification for congress) but contrasts with Bush v Gore (states have wide authority to run their elections so Bush wins.) Such a plan would also have political risks of GOP retalation.
Will solidly Republican states allow electors to vote only for Republican candidates for president? If the tax gambit is OK, then such a law might also be constitutional.
It is possible that I'm missing the tone of the piece and this is all just satire or wild speculation. But in Walker Chandler v Miller, the court held that it would be a 4th Amendment violation to piss-test GA state legislative candidates.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-126.ZS.html.
This would seem controlling.
The column also assumes that the Democratic controlled states would be willing to pass something rather obviouly unconstitutional, and would face no consequences for doing so.
Unfortunately, he's probably right, and this is not limited to just one side of the aisle.
I think that a GOP state allowing only GOP votes for president would also be obviously unconstitutional, maybe on 1st Amendment or 14th Amendment grounds. I'm not sure which case controls.
If somebody wants to see Trump's tax returns, the way to go about is by warrant or possibly subpoena. That would involve some allegation of criminal or civil liability where his financial records wwould be more probative than predjudicial. The way things are going, that could happen. US v Nixon, about the release of watergate tapes, might be the case on point.
I don't think it is only democrats in congress who will have issues with the way Trump is governing. Today he attacked the freedom caucus, for defeating the health care bill. That's a group whose support he urgently needs to support his budget. I still have an open mind about Trump. Clown, or crazy like a fox? He's great for the news cycle. NYT subscriptions are up, and CNN is raking in cash. I enjoy a good floorshow.
Hasen has an article at politico discussing how democrats in control of state legislatures could pass bills to make Trump disclose his tax returns as a condition of ballot access.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/donald-trump-tax-returns-release-214950
He admits that such a plan would be of dubious constitutionality, citing Term Limits v Thornton
(states can't add extra qualification for congress) but contrasts with Bush v Gore (states have wide authority to run their elections so Bush wins.) Such a plan would also have political risks of GOP retalation.
Will solidly Republican states allow electors to vote only for Republican candidates for president? If the tax gambit is OK, then such a law might also be constitutional.
It is possible that I'm missing the tone of the piece and this is all just satire or wild speculation. But in Walker Chandler v Miller, the court held that it would be a 4th Amendment violation to piss-test GA state legislative candidates.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-126.ZS.html.
This would seem controlling.
The column also assumes that the Democratic controlled states would be willing to pass something rather obviouly unconstitutional, and would face no consequences for doing so.
Unfortunately, he's probably right, and this is not limited to just one side of the aisle.
I think that a GOP state allowing only GOP votes for president would also be obviously unconstitutional, maybe on 1st Amendment or 14th Amendment grounds. I'm not sure which case controls.
If somebody wants to see Trump's tax returns, the way to go about is by warrant or possibly subpoena. That would involve some allegation of criminal or civil liability where his financial records wwould be more probative than predjudicial. The way things are going, that could happen. US v Nixon, about the release of watergate tapes, might be the case on point.
I don't think it is only democrats in congress who will have issues with the way Trump is governing. Today he attacked the freedom caucus, for defeating the health care bill. That's a group whose support he urgently needs to support his budget. I still have an open mind about Trump. Clown, or crazy like a fox? He's great for the news cycle. NYT subscriptions are up, and CNN is raking in cash. I enjoy a good floorshow.
Comments:
Post a Comment
