You have commented 338 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
‘Flagrantly illegal.’ Trump sues California over new law targeting his tax returns
2019-08-07
[SACBEE] President Donald Trump
...His ancestors didn't own any slaves...
, the Caliphornia, an impregnable bastion of the Democratic Party, Republican Party, and the national GOP joined together Tuesday to sue California over a new tax-return law Gov. Gavin Newsom signed last week.

The law requires Trump and other presidential candidates to release the last five years of their tax returns to get their names on the state’s 2020 primary ballot.

Trump has yet to weigh in on the issue himself. His personal attorney Jay Sekulow criticized "California’s attempt to circumvent the constitution."

"Today we have taken decisive action in federal court challenging California’s attempt to circumvent the U.S. Constitution," Sekulow said in a statement. "The issue of whether the president should release his federal tax returns was litigated in the 2016 election and the American people spoke. The effort to deny California voters the opportunity to cast a ballot for President Trump in 2020 will clearly fail. Legal scholars from across the political spectrum have roundly condemned this flagrantly illegal statute. We are confident the courts will as well."

Trump’s campaign filed its 15-page complaint in the U.S. Eastern District of California. Republican state politicians, the California Republican Party, and the Republican National Committee filed a similar 26-page lawsuit on Tuesday seeking an injunction.

The latest legal challenges announced Tuesday come days after the conservative group Judicial Watch filed for an injunction to stop the law in its tracks. Rocky de La Fuente, a California native and 2020 Republican presidential candidate, filed a similar complaint beforehand.
Rocky is a San Diego area crank
Trump argues in his lawsuit that the U.S. Constitution establishes a firm set of eligibility requirements related to age and citizenship. According to the lawsuit, "These are the exclusive qualifications for federal office."
The Constitution's also got that prohibition against bills of attainder.
The complaint from the Trump campaign filed Tuesday also calls the new law "a partisan effort" that is part of "the Democrats’ ongoing crusade to obtain the president’s federal tax returns in the hopes of finding something they can use to harm him politically."

California will argue it has administrative jurisdiction over its state ballots.

In a signing statement, Newsom said the Constitution "grants states the authority to determine how their electors are chosen, and California is well within its constitutional right to include this requirement."

Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who will defend California in court, said on Monday that the state had not yet been served with a complaint. While he declined to comment on the specifics of pending cases, he said he’d be ready for the lawsuit

"We’ll be ready to do what we need to do to defend California’s law and statutes," Becerra said.

Related:
Bills of attainder: 2016-12-15 Senate Dems roll out "divest or impeachment" bill
Bills of attainder: 2009-11-28 Justice Dept. Says Acorn Can Be Paid
Bills of attainder: 2009-11-17 ACORN Goes for Broke
Posted by:Fred

#6  ..some of California. There's the West Virginia precedent.

You know it only takes 2/3rds of the Senate to ratify or amend a treaty, say, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and return the 'offended' areas back to Mexico.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2019-08-07 12:19  

#5  Darth, you say that like it's a bad thing.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia   2019-08-07 09:57  

#4  I expect this to be struck down after a trip through a circuit court.

That being said, I also expect California and other loonybin states to secede after Trump wins 2020.
Posted by: DarthVader   2019-08-07 09:40  

#3  That'll never happen, Raj. Not in California. It's too late. And it doesn't matter whether the law is constitutional or not. The object is to harass and delay in any way possible, legal or otherwise.
Posted by: Abu Uluque   2019-08-07 09:22  

#2  Knowingly passing laws that are a)unconstitutional and b) are bills of attainder - sounds like grounds for impeachment (for the CA Dems) to me.
Posted by: Raj   2019-08-07 09:13  

#1  A one party system by 'any means necessary'. The mask is off.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2019-08-07 01:58  

00:00