California Bill Will Take President Trump Off the Ballot in 2020

[rangerrebew]

California Bill Will Take President Trump Off the Ballot in 2020
By
S.Noble -
May 3, 2019
 

California lawmakers plan to pass a bill taking Donald Trump off the ballot in 2020. They passed the same bill two years ago and other liberal states are doing the same although it’s obviously unconstitutional.

It is very possible Governor Gavin Newsom will sign it whereas former Governor Jerry Brown would not. He said he would “evaluate” the bill based on its “own merits.”

He should base it on the rule of law, the Constitution.

https://www.independentsentinel.com/california-bill-will-take-president-trump-off-the-ballot-in-2020/

[skeeter]

California Bill Will Take President Trump Off the Ballot in 2020
By
S.Noble -
May 3, 2019
 

California lawmakers plan to pass a bill taking Donald Trump off the ballot in 2020. They passed the same bill two years ago and other liberal states are doing the same although it’s obviously unconstitutional.

It is very possible Governor Gavin Newsom will sign it whereas former Governor Jerry Brown would not. He said he would “evaluate” the bill based on its “own merits.”

He should base it on the rule of law, the Constitution.

https://www.independentsentinel.com/california-bill-will-take-president-trump-off-the-ballot-in-2020/

Such states should be decertified & prevented from participating in national elections.

[Smokin Joe]

Any State which passes such a law should be stripped of Federal funding. All of it.

Ignoring Federal Law has gotten ridiculous.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Such states should be decertified & prevented from participating in national elections.

 

[libertybele]

Any State which passes such a law should be stripped of Federal funding. All of it.

Ignoring Federal Law has gotten ridiculous.

IMHO the RNC should be taking these states to court.  They are passing laws that go against the Constitution.  Of course, the RNC and the GOPe have no backbone and will do absolutely nothing, but cave as usual.

[Chosen Daughter]

IMHO the RNC should be taking these states to court.  They are passing laws that go against the Constitution.  Of course, the RNC and the GOPe have no backbone and will do absolutely nothing, but cave as usual.

Because GOP isn't the same anymore.  They have moved left and the left has moved red.  I fear that we have come to the time Benjamin Franklin warned us about:

The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

[Elderberry]

IMHO the RNC should be taking these states to court.  They are passing laws that go against the Constitution.  Of course, the RNC and the GOPe have no backbone and will do absolutely nothing, but cave as usual.

The RNC may not be able to take these states to court until Trump's Name is Denied to be placed on their state's ballot. Until then Trump is not personally affected.

[Hoodat]

California Bill Will Take President Trump Off the Ballot in 2020

Works for me.  I look forward to California losing all its electoral votes.

[Fishrrman]

bele wrote:
"IMHO the RNC should be taking these states to court.  They are passing laws that go against the Constitution.  Of course, the RNC and the GOPe have no backbone and will do absolutely nothing, but cave as usual."

The time "for taking them to court" has pretty much... passed by.

It's nearing time for something else...

Aside:
Why didn't Lincoln try "taking the Confederate states to court" to bring them back into the fold...?

[sneakypete]

bele wrote:
"IMHO the RNC should be taking these states to court.  They are passing laws that go against the Constitution.  Of course, the RNC and the GOPe have no backbone and will do absolutely nothing, but cave as usual."

The time "for taking them to court" has pretty much... passed by.

It's nearing time for something else...

Aside:
Why didn't Lincoln try "taking the Confederate states to court" to bring them back into the fold...?

@Fishrrman

Because it was still America then,and THE ORIGINAL VOLUNTARY UNION. By definition you can pull out of a voluntary union at any time.

It's even a lie to call us the "UNITED STATES of America" because the one thing we ain't is united.

[libertybele]

Because GOP isn't the same anymore.  They have moved left and the left has moved red.  I fear that we have come to the time Benjamin Franklin warned us about:

The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Bingo!!  We are holding on by a very thin thread.

[libertybele]

@Fishrrman

Because it was still America then,and THE ORIGINAL VOLUNTARY UNION. By definition you can pull out of a voluntary union at any time.

It's even a lie to call us the "UNITED STATES of America" because the one thing we ain't is united.

You are so correct.  No longer united at all.  We in this forum should have all be Senators and Congressmen!!! This country would be in good shape!!

[MeshugeMikey]

18 states are looking into this plan

somehow I dont think its unconstitutional. if its not.... please do SHARE

[240B]

This is a Good Thing.

Look man, obviously the "United States" is becoming more and more not united. Let's just breakup. You go your way. I'll go mine. And all is well. California needs us a lot more than we need them.

[jafo2010]

I do not want to see any state break from the union.  California should be faced with no federal funds, and a shutdown of all services that are in any way controlled by federal employees, i.e. all airports, all ports of call, all trains crossing into CA from other states, and that shut down kept in place until such time CA revokes all laws they passed in direct violation or at odds with USA laws.

I also believe the governor should be removed from office as well as the state congress if they fail to comply.

The time has come to stand up to states that violate federal laws.

[Free Vulcan]

While I'm all about states rights, this is exclusively a Federal issue. CA has no jurisdiction.

Not only is this targeted + selective, its not based on principle but rather about hurting Trump. It also opens the door to poll tax kind of gimmicks to keep oppo candidates off the ballot.

[libertybele]

18 states are looking into this plan

somehow I dont think its unconstitutional. if its not.... please do SHARE

States have rights UNLESS what they are doing goes against the Constitution or federal law.  The Constitution clearly states the electoral process under the 12th Amendment.

The law that applies to situations where state and federal laws disagree is called the supremacy clause, which is part of article VI of the Constitution. The supremacy clause contains what's known as the doctrine of pre-emption, which says that the federal government wins in the case of conflicting legislation.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/state-vs-federal-law-who_b_4676579

https://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/the-supremacy-clause-and-the-doctrine-of-preemption.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[cato potatoe]

This is a Good Thing.

Look man, obviously the "United States" is becoming more and more not united. Let's just breakup. You go your way. I'll go mine. And all is well. California needs us a lot more than we need them.

Yes I think the time has come, sadly.  California without the rest of the country is Lord of the Flies. 

[Free Vulcan]

This is a Good Thing.

Look man, obviously the "United States" is becoming more and more not united. Let's just breakup. You go your way. I'll go mine. And all is well. California needs us a lot more than we need them.

They do that and I expect Oregon and Washington to go with them.

Then China's gonna remind them of our debt that we owe and will annex them in lieu of repayment.

[libertybele]

While I'm all about states rights, this is exclusively a Federal issue. CA has no jurisdiction.

Not only is this targeted + selective, its not based on principle but rather about hurting Trump. It also opens the door to poll tax kind of gimmicks to keep oppo candidates off the ballot.

Exactly.  The GOP and the RNC needs to step in and say enough.  Regardless if we are united or not, ALL fall under the Constitution and Federal law, unless they secede from the 'Union'. I believe once they do that they have no voting privileges in a national election.

States that are arbitrarily ignoring federal law should be sued.  Just like back when AZ was trying to ignore federal law with immigration, the U.S. under Bammy sued them and made them comply.  As much as I agreed with the state of AZ, we have the Constitution and federal laws for a reason.

For too long, politicians have ignored the rule of law and that is exactly why we are in the situation that we are in.

It is no different then people deciding that they don't need to stop for red lights anymore which would create complete chaos. 

Now, the real problem I forsee is if LIBERAL states with liberal legislators decide to call an Article V/Convention of States, which in essence could revert power back to the states and strip the feds of some of their power.  Conservative states had their chances and blew it.

[Smokin Joe]

If, 150 years ago, the Federal Government could impose the compact of the Constitution on the Southern States despite the words still fresh that "...government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed...", then it can use whatever means are necessary to expel invaders and bring the rebellious States into compliance with Federal Law.

The precedent for that imposition, by force of arms, if necessary, is well established, and has been repeated proclaimed as just in my lifetime. Even the monuments to those fallen dead who disagreed are being destroyed and that history sanitized and rewritten.

So be it. Reap that whirlwind.

[skeeter]

18 states are looking into this plan

somehow I dont think its unconstitutional. if its not.... please do SHARE

I couldn't cite the particular clause but I'm pretty certain states deleting qualified candidates from their ballots in such a way that would prejudice the results of a national election which effects the rest of the country would be patently unconstitutional.

[Elderberry]

From the CA Secretary of State Site for the 2016 election:
https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/prior-elections/statewide-election-results/presidential-primary-election-june-7-2016/qualifications-running-office/

ALEX PADILLA | SECRETARY OF STATE | STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ELECTIONS DIVISION 1500 11th Street, 5th Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814 | Tel 916.657.2166 | Fax 916.653.3214 | www.sos.ca.gov

 Summary of
Qualifications and Requirements for the Office of

 UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
REPUBLICAN PARTY
June 7, 2016, Presidential Primary Election
I. QUALIFICATIONS

Every candidate shall be a natural-born citizen of the United States, at least 35 years of age, and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years. U.S. Const., art. II, § 1, cl. 5
II. REQUIREMENTS

There are two methods by which a person may have his or her name placed on the ballot as a presidential candidate in the June 7, 2016, Presidential Primary Election:
• by determination of the Secretary of State that a person is a generally-recognized candidate, or
• by circulating nomination petitions.

A. GENERALLY-RECOGNIZED CANDIDATES
1. The Secretary of State announces the names of individuals he has determined to be generally advocated for or recognized throughout the United States or California as actively seeking the nomination of the Republican Party for President. § 63401

Criteria the Secretary of State may use to determine who is a “generally-recognized” candidate includes, but is not limited to:
a. Qualifying for federal matching funds,
b. Appearing in presidential public opinion polls, candidates’ forums, or debates,
c. Being on other states’ primary ballots as a presidential candidate,
d. Actively campaigning in California for the presidency,
e. Having a campaign office in California, and
f. Advice and input from the chairpersons of the Republican Party or the Republican State Central Committee.

2. On or before February 8, 2016 (E-120), the Secretary of State will publicly announce this determination. § 6340

B. CIRCULATION OF NOMINATION PAPERS FOR CANDIDATES (NOT SELECTED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE)
1. Any candidate not selected by the Secretary of State desiring to be placed on the Presidential Primary Election ballot shall have nomination papers circulated on his or her behalf. § 6343
2. To qualify for placement on the Presidential Primary Election ballot, the nomination papers of the candidate must be signed by voters who have selected a preference with the Republican Party equal in number to not less than 1% of the number of persons who have selected a preference with the Republican Party in the 154-Day Report of Registration issued by the Secretary of State. §§ 2187(d)(1), 6343, 6362
3. Each signer of a nomination paper for a Republican presidential candidate may sign only one paper. The signer shall declare his or her intention to support the candidate for nomination, and include his or her residence address. § 6361
4. Any nomination paper may be presented in sections. Each section shall contain the names of the candidate. Each section shall bear the name of the county in which it is circulated. Only voters of the county registered as intending to affiliate with the political party by which the nominations are to be made are competent to sign. § 6362
5. Each section of the nomination paper shall be delivered to the elections official of the county where the petition was circulated. § 6360
6. The period for circulating the nominating papers is February 24, 2016 (E-104), through March 25, 2016 (E-74). §§ 6360, 6382
7. The last day to file nomination papers with the county elections official is March 25, 2016 (E-74). §§ 6360, 6382
8. No later than March 31, 2016** (E-68), the Secretary of State shall prepare a certified list containing the names and addresses of the candidates for whom nomination papers have been filed and who are entitled to be voted for at the Presidential Primary Election. § 6954

[sneakypete]

They do that and I expect Oregon and Washington to go with them.

Then China's gonna remind them of our debt that we owe and will annex them in lieu of repayment.

@Free Vulcan

It's going to happen regardless of what any of us peons want because the political leadership is being paid off by the Chinese. Di-Fi's husband is a lawyer that represents China in the US,and that is just one example.

[jmyrlefuller]

I have an idea.

Since it's extremely unlikely that California will vote for a national Republican anyway, how about running a spoiler candidate? It wasn't that long ago that Arnold Schwarzenegger won California as a Republican. With 55 electoral votes, a spoiler candidate skewed to California interests would, if successful, pretty much slam the chances of any Democrat winning an outright Electoral College majority.

This might be a brilliant opportunity.