Forget the 14th Amendment. Here's a foolproof solution to keeping Trump from running again:

[StarfishSaver]

If Congress amended the federal election laws to require presidential candidates to file a report containing their tax returns from the previous 10 years, Trump will disqualify himself.

"Candidates for President or Vice President: Candidates for nomination or election to the office of President or Vice President are required to file an annual Office of Government Ethics (OGE) Public Financial Disclosure Report with the FEC, ACCOMPANIED BY FEDERAL AND STATE TAX RETURNS FROM THE PREVIOUS 10 YEARS within 30 days after becoming a candidate for nomination or election, or by May 15 of that calendar year, whichever is later, but at least 30 days before the election."
https://www.fec.gov/

Quick and easy.

[Progressive Jones]

1. GOPSCUM will never go for it. nt

[Oldem]

4. No, they won't, but I think

fifty Democrats would, plus Vice President Harris. Sounds like an excellent idea to me, dump or no dump.

[Progressive Jones]

8. Great point. On that subject, the Dems have to go simple majority on every vote from here on.

I know there are Constitutional situations requiring 2/3rds, but whenever possible, go simple majority.

Fuck The GOPSCUM.

[Polybius]

16. We still have a filibuster

New bills can be filibustered, unlike the budget which is how we’re getting the Covid Relief.

[Hortensis]

21. Some Pubs should get behind it. They have been supporting legislation

reining in rampant corruption, such as to make international money laundering and illegal tax shelters more difficult for just one.

Let's do that, AND the 14th specially for Trump.

[DonaldsRump]

2. Great idea!

Also, I am outraged that someone convicted of a felony can't VOTE, but CAN run for federal office unless otherwise debarred from doing so. That seems outlandish.

[TwilightZone]

3. Majority vote?

[ProudMNDemocrat]

5. This would pass. Kamala is the tie breaker.

Let the Senate Republicans complain.

Any office seeker at the Federal level should be compelled to release 10 years of Tax Returns to be vetted for Nationsl Security reasons.

[GoCubsGo]

11. They probably wouldn't need Kamala.

If they only needed a majority vote, they likely have Romney, who had no problem turning over his taxes back in his 2012 presidential run. They'd probably get a few others, like Murkowski, Collins, and some of the ones who aren't running again, such as Portman.

[JHB]

26. Romney had PLENTY of problems with disclosing his tax returns.

It was Romney's minimal-figleaf disclosures, and the party establishment's being fine with it, that paved the way for Trump blowing it off entirely.

Mitt's position was that it was private information, and it wasn't anybody else's business. He practically had to have his teeth pulled to release the little that he did: one year plus one incomplete year, both still well within the time range of being "amended" after the spotlight had passed.

[LSparkle]

14. Good point -- and it is for national security

We absolutely have the right to know where a candidate’s money comes from, how it’s invested — and especially if they’re making money in foreign countries.

[servermsh]

6. I don't see how this passes a Constitutional challenge, given California's effort was struck down

[StarfishSaver]

9. Candidates and federal officeholders are already required to file financial disclosures

This just expands the requirements for what must be included in those disclosures. I think it would have no trouble withstanding any challenge.

The California case involved the qualifications for being allowed on the ballot. This is different. It doesn't restrict access to the ballot. It says that if you are on the ballot, you have to provide certain public disclosures.

[former9thward]

17. This has never been challenged at the SC level.

You are dismissive of any challenge without having any precedent to back you up. In fact when another section of that law was challenged the SC invalided that section. 513 U.S.454 (1995).

[melm00se]

29. I am with you on this

the Constitution is quite clear on the requirements to be president:

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 within the United States. - Article II section 1

Any additional requirements would almost certainly require a Constitutional amendment as any law made can be a law undone by a future Congress and president and/or overturned by the Supreme Court.

This is the reason that things like:
Slavery
Income taxes
Women's suffrage
Poll taxes
were all done via amendments because that move along put the issue beyond the reach of Congress or the Supreme Court.

[Celerity]

44. yes, this is a massive waste of time, time we do not have in great supply nt

[OAITW r.2.0]

7. I like....where you made your money is a NatSec issue. nt

[dweller]

10. Imagine

if this was a requirement for every political office ...

jus sayin ...

✌🏻

[halfulglas]

12. Also anyone who wants to, sue him before the statute of limitations runs out.

Have at it. As we've seen from his quality of lawyers now, he's not exactly flush. He took all those people to court when he wouldn't pay his bills, now he has to decide to how to pay his lawyers and continue his life style. I don't think his Russian backers are going to want to pay the money they did before. Those small dollar donors might stop when they don't see the huge rallies any more because he can't afford them. Are the Russians going to continue investing in him? Not to mention the lawsuits already in the system.

We have to watch for the next despot to be. He'll be a little smarter and more sophisticated.

[58Sunliner]

13. This can and will be contested-30 days before the election????

meanwhile the primaries will be based on who is currently on the ballot and people will be forced out. Talk about a potential shitshow. The 14th amendment is not one DT can challenge.

[StarfishSaver]

15. The 14th Amendment solution can be challenged and would get thrown out immediately

Congress cannot unilaterally find people guilty of crimes and bar them from office outside of the impeachment clause

And candidates are already required to file financial disclosures. Including tax returns as part of that disclosure is perfectly legal and constitutional.

The difference between the 14th Amendment option and the FEC option is that the former disqualifies a person from ever running by declaring them guilty of a crime, which can't be done with judicial involvement, while the latter doesn't affect anyone's qualifications to run but simply requires everyone who does run to do certain things, which is common and acceptable.

Candidates have to meet all kinds of requirements when they decide to run, including financial disclosures campaign finance disclosures, limitations on contributions, etc. This would be no different.

[58Sunliner]

23. Not buying the fantasy. 30 days before an election

Ballots are already printed and the lawsuits start. You can assert any hypothetical you want to, but that doesn't mean that it will be the reality. It is a process that if successfully challenged will be a disaster. And has the potential to be a disaster even if it is eventually upheld which is doubtful. The 14th amendment does require, apparently, a 2 part process. We need a simple majority vote in both houses. Then a court finding of criminality. Congress doesn't "unilaterally" do anything except what they are authorized to do.

[StarfishSaver]

24. You seem to have financial disclosure confused with disqualification to hold office under the 14th

Two separate and unrelated things. Congress cannot unilaterally declare someone guilty of a crime and disqualify them from federal office with a majority vote.

But Congress does have every right to place financial disclosure requirements on candidates for federal office. They've been doing that for years and it's perfectly constitutional.

Two different things.

[58Sunliner]

31. No I don't, and I have no idea how you would conflate the 2 in my response.

Unless of course, you are trying to obfuscate. BTW the Constitution sets the requirements for candidates (president), for federal office. Congress has powers to oversee states elections in a limited way, but only to uphold and enforce uniform laws for federal elections. Maybe you should read the link below. I don't appreciate someone trying to gaslight me.
https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01470.pdf

[StarfishSaver]

34. Please explain how Congress can require candidates to file financial disclosures

and has done so for decades without any successful Constitutional challenge?

And, fyi, the document you linked is completely irrelevant to this discussion -it discusses Congress' ability to oversee state and federal elections. It has nothing to do with Congress' right to require candidates to disclose financial information.

[58Sunliner]

36. You are the one making the assertion regarding Trump as a presidential candidate.

Releasing tax returns is voluntary. You tell me if a presidential candidate fulfills the constitutional requirements, how are you going to enforce tax returns without an amendment to the constitution? They are not required by law. FYI, financial disclosures and tax returns are 2 different things. Why do you think he will not release his tax returns. The document is relevant to what you proposed. Tax returns.

[StarfishSaver]

37. You claim it's constitutional for a candidate to be required to file financial disclosure

but unconstitutional to require them to include their tax returns as part of that financial disclosure, but seem unable to explain why.

You can't explain it because there is no distinction between the two requirements from a constitutional standpoint.

[58Sunliner]

40. If you don't know the difference between a tax return and a financial disclosure I can't help you.

"You it's constitutional for a candidate to be required to file financial disclosure"- I'm fully aware that financial disclosures are mandated. Nice try. Now add the presidential candidate part and those tax returns.

[StarfishSaver]

42. Lol

If you think the fact that it's a tax return instead of a financial disclosure form makes a dime's worth of difference in whether the requirement is constitutional, is the right emoji.

[58Sunliner]

46. One is law, neither is constitutional.

And one is not required for presidential candidates to disclose-tax returns. Good luck with your gaslighting. At this point it is ludicrous.
"Candidates for President or Vice President: Candidates for nomination or election to the office of President or Vice President are required to file an annual Office of Government Ethics (OGE) Public Financial Disclosure Report with the FEC within 30 days after becoming a candidate for nomination or election, or by May 15 of that calendar year, whichever is later, but at least 30 days before the election."

[StarfishSaver]

47. You don't know what you're talking about

You really should leave the legal analysis to people who know the law.

Of course, you're free to continue babbling nonsense and further revealing how little you understand about the law and the Constitution, but you'll need to direct it to someone else. I'm not wasting any more of my time.

[58Sunliner]

48. 🤣

[Jon King]

18. Why on earth would we not want Trump to run again????

I pray he runs again. He motivates progressives, the young, people of color, suburban moms, college educated. He would lose every state he just lost by huge margins and also lose NC with the changing demographics and maybe lose TX. He would lose the popular vote by 20 million and the electoral college in a huge landslide. He lost while having the power of the office to cheat, along with Twitter. Without those things he would get destroyed.

Please, please, please let him run in 2024. The total destruction of him would be great tonic for the US.

But come on now, he knows this and has zero intention of running.

[StarfishSaver]

19. That's what people said in 2016. It didn't work out so well

No no no. We can't ever let him get anywhere near the White House again. Allowing him to be a candidate brings him too close for comfort - anything can happen that could let him stumble back in.

I don't think he will run again, but no way on earth would I see him running as a good thing for anyone.

[radius777]

43. If Biden is relatively successful and runs again

he is all but a lock to win reelection, as most incumbents do. But if Kamala runs, with the country's history of racism and sexism, and the red shift of the Midwest and FL in recent years - then it does become much more dicey.

I agree we have to use all angles to hobble or disqualify Trump from running, as sitting back and taking him for granted is foolish, as history has shown. If he were to become president again it would be the end of democracy. My wish is the DOJ prosecutes him for sedition and insurrection, then if convicted we can use the 14th to bar him from running. Trump should not be allowed to get away with his crimes. Pelosi indicated she will form a 9-11 type of commission to investigate all of this.

[StarfishSaver]

45. No one is a "lock" to win any election

We can't afford to be that complacent.

[no_hypocrisy]

20. Would that measure be constitutionally sufficient?

That's qualifying the conditions to run for President without amending Article II:

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 within the United States.

[StarfishSaver]

22. Yes

This doesn't set or change qualifications to run, it simply requires candidates who are running to do certain things.

The law already requires federal candidates to file financial disclosure. This simply adds additional information that must be included with that disclosure.

Perfectly constitutional.

[onenote]

25. Several reasons why this is highly unlikely to happen

First, someone would propose an amendment requiring members of the House and Senate and candidates for the House and Senate to do make the same disclosure (just as they are required to make the same disclosures at the President/VP under the law today). A large majority wouldn't want to be subject to that obligation nor would they want to vote on it. So it simply never will get anywhere.

Second, given the make-up of the Supreme Court it is far from certain it would survive scrutiny. Scalia was not a fan of the Ethics in Government law and his acolytes make up a majority of the Court today.

If by some chance -- unlikely as it might be -- such a proposal was voted on and passed into law, Trump (and others) would sue to strike it down. That lawsuit wouldn't come immediately -- it would come only when the deadline to comply was nearing, or after some attempt to enforce it (which currently, I believe, is a fine of up to $50,000) occurs. The amount of time it would take for the courts to resolve the issue would likely mean there would be no fear of having to comply before election day. And if by some horrible chance Trump was to win and still refuse to comply, the Senate would still acquit him if there was an attempt to impeach him for non-compliance.

It's a nice thought -- just not a particularly realistic one.

[StarfishSaver]

27. You're making this too complicated

Congress has every right to require federal candidates to do certain things. There is no issue for the Supreme Court to consider.

For example, federal law already requires numerous disclosures of candidates and federal office holders. Even Trump had to - and did - file financial disclosures as a candidate and as president. That is fully within Congress' power and is constitutional without question.

My idea simply adds additional information that must be included in the financial disclosure. Again, that is fully within Congress' power.

This is not a criminal matter and it doesn't affect any candidate's right to be a candidate or to serve. It is a regulatory/administrative matter. And, you are correct, there are currently fines that attach - that wouldn't change.

Trump wouldn't have to comply. If he didn't, he'd pay a fine. Failure to comply with financial disclosure requirements has never been and wouldn't be an impeachable offense.

However, I think that because tax returns are in the possession of the Treasury Department, there could be a provision that requires Treasury to release the returns if the candidate fails to.

But this idea is not nearly as complicated or controversial as you're making it out to be. It's perfectly constitutional and is already within the framework of what's currently done.

[onenote]

28. You assume that the Congress would have the stomach to adopt it.

I'm confident that they wouldn't, for the reasons I stated. There will not be a majority in the Senate or, maybe, the House, that wants to have to comply with such a requirement and they won't want to have to vote down an amendment that would apply it to all federal candidates.

So, as a matter of simple political expediency, it will never reach the floor for a vote.

Also, as you acknowledge, Trump could safely ignore the law. So how would it end up being a foolproof way of keeping him from running again?

[mcar]

30. Boom!

[ananda]

32. Keeping the vote is everything! That's why...

I just put my money where my mouth is and
donated to Democracy Docket!

I support Marc Elias in his legal efforts to keep
the vote safe and secure, just as he did during
the election.

[StarfishSaver]

35. Please explain how Congress can require candidates to file financial disclosures,

why all candidates - even Trump - comply with them, and why these requirements never got "thrown out in court in a heartbeat" or on any other timetable.

[58Sunliner]

38. So let's go over this again. Financial disclosures are not the same as tax returns.

Tax returns of a presidential candidate can not be compelled without an amendment to the constitution, since it is the constitution that sets the requirements for a presidential candidate.
Six things about them includes-financial disclosures do NOT include how much a candidate paid in taxes and, thus, what their effective tax rate was, do not list what types of tax deductions a candidate has claimed. These could range from deducting interest paid on one’s mortgage to putting a goat on a golf course to qualify for farmland tax credits, financial disclosures ask candidates to list assets but are not required to provide detailed information, so offshore accounts can be easily masked, financial disclosures do not include information on what, if anything, a candidate has given to charity, financial disclosures are reviewed by the FEC for compliance with reporting requirements, but they are not audited for accuracy like tax returns which carry fines and possible jail time for fraud, financial disclosures report assets in broad ranges (e.g. $1,001 - $15,000; over $1,000,000), while tax returns focus on the exact dollar figure of an asset.
https://www.thirdway.org/one-pager/whats-under-the-hood-tax-return-vs-financial-disclosure

[StarfishSaver]

39. With all due respect, you are completely wrong

Requiring a candidate to submit their tax returns as part of their financial disclosure no more adds a "qualification" for someone to run for president than requiring them to file a financial disclosure does.

But I'm not going to argue Constitutional law with someone who knows nothing about it but is nonetheless certain of their expertise. Think whatever you want.

[58Sunliner]

41. Oh ok.

[Poiuyt]

49. Another way to accomplish this is to have the states require it to be in their primaries

Not all states would vote for that, but perhaps enough to be meaningful would.

[StarfishSaver]

50. That would be unconstitutional.

Last edited Mon Feb 15, 2021, 12:44 AM - Edit history (1)

California tried this and the state Supreme Court threw it out. The state made this a condition of potential candidates getting on the ballot and running in the primaries. The Court ruled that this amounted to an additional qualification beyond the qualifications set forth in the Constitution (natural born citizen, 35 years old, residency) and, therefore, it was invalid.

This is different and doesn't raise a Constitutional issue. In requiring that candidates file financial disclosures, Congress and the FEC are not setting any conditions for a candidate to run or become president and don't make disclosing certain financial information a prerequisite to running or serving. They're just saying that, if someone DOES run, they must do certain things after they become a candidate and one of those things is to regularly file reports disclosing their finances. If they fail to do these things, they'll have to pay a fine, but that won't keep them from running or serving.

Requiring a candidate to include their tax returns as part of such a financial disclosure, by the same token, would not be an additional qualification or condition for getting on a ballot or running for or becoming president. Just like the financial disclosure itself, it's simply a requirement that candidates must meet after they become a candidate. As such, it doesn't run afoul of the qualifications provision, as the California state law did.

[Poiuyt]

51. Thanks for the explanation, Starfish

[StarfishSaver]

54. No problem

I hope it helped

[ecstatic]

52. Also, they should be forced to divest before inauguration! nt

[StarfishSaver]

53. No need to divest. Blind trusts have always worked until 2017

But that's because Trump was a lying criminal, not because of any problem with the rules.