- And while Brown was no fan of Trump, the former governor contended that compelling the release of tax returns could be unconstitutional, and cautioned that signing the bill would launch a political standoff into unknown territory, like requiring candidates’ birth certificates, health records or report cards (POLITICO)
Both Federal Law and the Constitution protect Presidents from having their tax returns made public. Many of the cases and decisions mentioned in this audio will also defeat California’s bid to do the same. This show was from June of 2019.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U. S. Constitution sets three qualifications for holding the presidency. To serve as president, one must:
- be a natural-born U.S. citizen of the United States;
- be at least thirty-five years old;
- be a resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.
Those are the requirements as stated in the Constitution. Simple.
More via FIND LAW: U.S. TERM LIMITS INC. V. THORNTON
…Respondent Hill filed this suit in Arkansas state court challenging the constitutionality of 3 of Amendment 73 to the Arkansas Constitution, which prohibits the name of an otherwise-eligible candidate for Congress from appearing on the general election ballot if that candidate has already served three terms in the House of Representatives or two terms in the Senate. The trial court held that 3 violated Article I of the Federal Constitution, and the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed. A plurality of the latter court concluded that the States have no authority “to change, add to, or diminish” the age, citizenship, and residency requirements for congressional service enumerated in the Qualifications Clauses, U.S. Const., Art. I, 2, cl. 2, and Art. I, 3, cl. 3, and rejected the argument that Amendment 73 is constitutional because it is formulated as a ballot access restriction rather than an outright disqualification of congressional incumbents.
[….]
(b) So too, the Constitution prohibits States from imposing congressional qualifications additional to those specifically enumerated in its text. Petitioners’ argument that States possess control over qualifications as part of the original powers reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment is rejected for two reasons. First, the power to add qualifications is not within the States’ pre-Tenth-Amendment “original powers,” but is a new right arising from the Constitution itself, and thus is not reserved. Second, even if the States possessed some original power in this area, it must be concluded that the Framers intended the Constitution to be the exclusive source of qualifications for Members of Congress, and that the Framers thereby “divested” States of any power to add qualifications. That this is so is demonstrated by the unanimity among the courts and learned commentators who have considered the issue; by the Constitution’s structure and the text of pertinent constitutional provisions, including Art. I, 2, cl. 1, Art. I, 4, cl. 1, Art. I, 6, and Art. I, 5, cl. 1; by the relevant historical materials, including the records of the Constitutional Convention and the ratification debates, as well as Congress’ subsequent experience with state attempts to impose qualifications; and, most importantly, by the “fundamental principle of our representative democracy… `that the people should choose whom they please to govern them,”‘ Powell, 395 U.S., at 547 . Permitting individual States to formulate diverse qualifications for their congressional representatives would result in a patchwork that would be inconsistent with the Framers’ vision of a uniform National Legislature representing the people of the United States. The fact that, immediately after the adoption of the Constitution, many States imposed term limits and other qualifications on state officers, while only one State imposed such a qualification on Members of Congress, provides further persuasive evidence of a general understanding that the qualifications in the Constitution were unalterable by the States. Pp. 18-50….
