Newsnews

Fri Apr 12, 2019, 11:30 AM

Illinois Democrats to Trump: Show tax returns or be barred from 2020 ballot

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (WTVO) - The Illinois Senate passed legislation Thursday aimed at forcing President Trump to release his personal income tax returns or be barred from the state's 2020 presidential ballot.

The Democrat-led Senate voted 36-19 in favor of the bill.

...

State Sen. Tony Munoz (D-Chicago) said, "If you want to run for vice president or president of the United States, hey, what’s wrong with providing your tax returns for the past five years?" according to WBEZ.

“If you’ve got nothing to hide, you shouldn’t worry about anything,” he said. “That’s how I see it.”

The move drew criticism from Illinois Republicans

https://www.mystateline.com/news/illinois-democrats-to-trump-show-tax-returns-or-be-barred-from-2020-ballot/1919139230

41 replies, 352 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 41 replies Author Time Post
Reply Illinois Democrats to Trump: Show tax returns or be barred from 2020 ballot (Original post)
orson Apr 12 OP
nolidad Apr 12 #1
Boadicea Apr 12 #2
foia Apr 12 #3
Gunslinger201 Apr 12 #4
bruiserboy Apr 12 #5
Solesurvivor Apr 12 #6
orson Apr 12 #11
Solesurvivor Apr 12 #13
orson Apr 12 #15
Solesurvivor Apr 13 #18
Bubba Apr 13 #20
Charlie Mike Apr 12 #7
quad489 Apr 12 #8
orson Apr 12 #14
quad489 Apr 12 #17
Tovera Apr 13 #19
nolidad Apr 13 #22
Tovera Apr 13 #30
nolidad Apr 14 #33
Tovera Apr 14 #36
nolidad Apr 14 #37
def_con5 Apr 14 #34
nolidad Apr 14 #38
def_con5 Apr 14 #40
nolidad Apr 15 #41
Charlie Mike Apr 13 #21
Da Mannn Apr 12 #9
Tolk Apr 12 #10
Badsamm Apr 12 #12
Carlos W Bush Apr 12 #16
nolidad Apr 13 #23
Banshee 3 Actual Apr 13 #24
DavesNotHere Apr 13 #25
orson Apr 13 #26
DavesNotHere Apr 13 #27
nolidad Apr 13 #29
Duke Lacrosse Apr 13 #28
oflguy Apr 13 #31
nolidad Apr 14 #39
Valishin Apr 14 #32
LexTalionis Apr 14 #35

Response to orson (Original post)

Fri Apr 12, 2019, 11:34 AM

1. Will not stand court test!

Legal requirements for presidential candidates have remained the same since the year Washington accepted the presidency. As directed by the Constitution, a presidential candidate must be a natural born citizen of the United States, a resident for 14 years, and 35 years of age or older.

So they can waste all the time they wish.

Maybe those dems should start in their own house and get Bernie to release his tax returns!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Fri Apr 12, 2019, 11:35 AM

2. Are they willing to show their tax returns in order to be on their ballot?

If not, then they shouldn't pass this....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Fri Apr 12, 2019, 11:37 AM

3. Also done in my state - Washington

From the party that whines about disenfranchising voters.

In 2016 38% of WA voters chose Trump despite the fact that HRC made his tax returns an issue. The Democrats want to keep all of those voters (who obviously didn't care about his tax returns) from being able to vote for him again in 2020.

Democrats can't win on policy or results so they resort to this kind of crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Fri Apr 12, 2019, 11:39 AM

4. Trump is over 35 and born here, He will be on the Ballot

Tell Illinois to read THIS:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Fri Apr 12, 2019, 11:41 AM

5. Keep that warm fuzzy feeling Orson,

But this will not be held up in the USSC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Fri Apr 12, 2019, 11:58 AM

6. Well since you have nothing to hid Orson please let me see your taxes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solesurvivor (Reply #6)

Fri Apr 12, 2019, 07:14 PM

11. I file the short form

No deductions; no unusual sources of income, no offshore accounts, no debts; $156 monthly in social security plus a modest federal pension. No secret shame; no hidden crimes. I think i may be shirking my civic responsibilities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Reply #11)

Fri Apr 12, 2019, 07:59 PM

13. Sorry cant take your word for it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solesurvivor (Reply #13)

Fri Apr 12, 2019, 08:18 PM

15. I'll prolly toss and turn

all night long worrying about that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Reply #15)

Sat Apr 13, 2019, 03:58 AM

18. Dont care what youll do at night

So when can I see those returns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Reply #11)

Sat Apr 13, 2019, 04:34 AM

20. $156 A Month From Social Security??

Now I realize Social Security was never intended to replace the salary you made when you were working. But I thought it was more lucrative than THAT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Fri Apr 12, 2019, 12:23 PM

7. Show us your taxes, hypocrite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Fri Apr 12, 2019, 12:25 PM

8. Where does the US Constitution require candidates show tax returns in order to run/hold office??????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quad489 (Reply #8)

Fri Apr 12, 2019, 08:10 PM

14. There is no national electoral machinery

Under the Constitution, elections are run by the states and they have lots of leeway as to how presidential electors are selected. Financial disclosure would seem to be a pretty low bar for any honest man. If you're sketchy maybe you ought not be running for President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Reply #14)

Fri Apr 12, 2019, 09:30 PM

17. Deflection noted....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quad489 (Reply #17)

Sat Apr 13, 2019, 04:07 AM

19. It's not a deflection.

It's pointing out that the Constitution is silent on such matters, and these things are indeed state prerogative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tovera (Reply #19)

Sat Apr 13, 2019, 06:50 AM

22. Not true.

States can set whatever requirements they want for state officials, but the constitution governs national officials.

A state cannot add or detract from the constitution on federal matters!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #22)

Sat Apr 13, 2019, 06:30 PM

30. I may have been unclear.

What I was trying to state was that when the Constitution is silent on a matter, as seems the case here, states are free to make their own regulations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tovera (Reply #30)

Sun Apr 14, 2019, 08:38 AM

33. But the Constitution is not silent on this matter!

What are the requirements to run for president of the United States?
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident ..

How about REd states make requirements that no one named Booker, Harriss, Sanders, Gabbard, Delaney, Swallwell, Warren, Klobuchar, Inslee, Ryan, Gillibrand, Castro, Messam, Williamson, Yang O'Rourke, Hickenlooper, Biden, Obama
will be allowed to be on the ballot. Would that be fine with you After all the Constitution is silent on this as well. It does not say you cannot forbid people with certain last names from being on a state ballot!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #33)

Sun Apr 14, 2019, 01:24 PM

36. None of that refers in any way to the conduct of elections, ballots, etc.

Again, the Constitution is silent on the matter of how the states conduct election polling. Office eligibility requirements are a different matter.

As for your somewhat odd question, you seem to be under the impression that I approve of this business with extorting Trump's tax return. I do not. I consider it to be a rather juvenile ploy, actually. I'm simply pointing out that it's very possibly constitutional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tovera (Reply #36)

Sun Apr 14, 2019, 05:28 PM

37. Well as tax returns were not around when the constitution was written that is moot.

But the guarantee of privacy is in the constitution and a govt. member seeking the personal information of a citizen without just cause is not allowed.

And for a national election or for national office- the fed supersedes the state in determining who can and cannot be on the ballot!
the only allowed restriction the courts have upheld is that if a candidate does not receive enough signatures by the citizenry to be placed on teh ballot.

No personal, financial or even ethical questions can be imposed on a candidate to make them eligible for a national office in any state!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #22)

Sun Apr 14, 2019, 11:30 AM

34. Nope

It's what killed term limits, the Supreme Court ruled the Constitution defined the standards for National office, and the states couldn't modify it. Term limits were then declared unconstitutional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to def_con5 (Reply #34)

Sun Apr 14, 2019, 05:30 PM

38. Why you say no is beyond me.

What you wrote in #34 I agree with!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #38)

Sun Apr 14, 2019, 07:36 PM

40. Cause I replied to the wrong person

I meant to reply to Tovera (the post after yours).

Sorry for the confusion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to def_con5 (Reply #40)

Mon Apr 15, 2019, 06:34 AM

41. OK

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Reply #14)

Sat Apr 13, 2019, 04:50 AM

21. So, what you're saying is: states can bar candidates for affiliation with the democrat party

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Fri Apr 12, 2019, 01:21 PM

9. When Democrats cannot win, they cheat.

It is why I do not respect democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Fri Apr 12, 2019, 03:38 PM

10. Looks like President Trump won Illinois

I wonder if these leftists realize just how stupid they are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Fri Apr 12, 2019, 07:19 PM

12. Yeah, that sounds legal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Fri Apr 12, 2019, 08:18 PM

16. Meh, it's not like Trump has a chance in hell of winning Illinois anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Sat Apr 13, 2019, 06:51 AM

23. Maybe teh fed should just withhold all fed money

till these satat3e officials certify they have gone through AA

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Sat Apr 13, 2019, 11:12 AM

24. Supremacy Clause of the Constitution will sweep this aside in the courts

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Sat Apr 13, 2019, 01:25 PM

25. If you think they should show tax returns, should they have to show their medical history

and academic history too?

If you've got nothing to hide, you shouldn't worry about anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DavesNotHere (Reply #25)

Sat Apr 13, 2019, 03:02 PM

26. Washington and Lincoln had no formal education

Grant was an indifferent scholar. I don't think education matters as much as literacy; the ability to read and learn. Roosevelt was a cripple,. Kennedy had Addison's disease and Reagan was senile for most of his second term. Health may or may not matter but I think voters have a right to know. Taxes will show a lot about honesty and the likelihood of self-dealing which I think is key. The emoluments clause proves the founders thought it was important. Disclosure has been the norm as far back as I can remember. I think it should be a legal requirement. I don't see it as a gotcha, just common sense. Anyone who takes the people's dime and spends the people's dollar should be transparent about their financial dealings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Reply #26)

Sat Apr 13, 2019, 03:06 PM

27. Is that a yes or a no? All the educational records (as far as who went where) are already

available, but not grades and academic writings. Personally, I don't believe there's much value in this, but it always seems to be an issue.

As far as the medical goes, you listed a whole bunch of things that were NOT known by the public prior to the election. It seems like this would have been information a voter would use to make an informed decision, though.

And given that you're looking for evidence of honesty or corruption, requiring the 1040 disclosures means you don't trust the IRS to do their job on this, and that you believe a person's financial dealings can be accurately discerned from this form.

Should anyone who takes the people's dime and spends people's dollars be transparent about their medical history?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Reply #26)

Sat Apr 13, 2019, 04:30 PM

29. Well then start a movement to get congress to pass a law!

Until then , there is absolutely no requirement that a presidential candidate or president release his tax returns.

But maybe the left should clean their own house first and demand Bernie release his long withheld tax returns before going after the person they hate the most!

BTW they tried and failed at the emoluments clause!

And maybe congress who actually are the ones who take the money, should be more specific in their returns! Instead of just giving vague ranges- let them release their returns before going after others. You know that old before you go after the splinter in anothers' eye- take out the log in your own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Sat Apr 13, 2019, 03:27 PM

28. I'm sure Trump is terrified at the prospect of losing Illinois.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Sat Apr 13, 2019, 08:22 PM

31. While we're making up new rules, should we revisit an old one?

Should Trump prove he is a US citizen?

Or is that one still irrelevant?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #31)

Sun Apr 14, 2019, 05:32 PM

39. His daddy was a citizen, that makes him a citizen.

I believe Obama may have been born in Africa. but mom was a US citizen, so that made him eligible to run for the presidency

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Sun Apr 14, 2019, 03:34 AM

32. So this guy

“If you’ve got nothing to hide, you shouldn’t worry about anything”
is good with us putting camera's in his bedroom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Sun Apr 14, 2019, 11:55 AM

35. I hate Illinois Nazis. They're the worst kind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Newsnews