The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: rangerrebew on May 05, 2019, 01:55:25 pm
-
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.â€
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/ (https://www.independentsentinel.com/california-bill-will-take-president-trump-off-the-ballot-in-2020/)
-
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.â€
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/ (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.
-
Any State which passes such a law should be stripped of Federal funding. All of it.
Ignoring Federal Law has gotten ridiculous.
-
Such states should be decertified & prevented from participating in national elections.
888high58888
-
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.
-
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.â€
-
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.
-
California Bill Will Take President Trump Off the Ballot in 2020
Works for me. I look forward to California losing all its electoral votes.
-
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...?
-
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.
-
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.â€
Bingo!! We are holding on by a very thin thread.
-
@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!!
-
18 states are looking into this plan
somehow I dont think its unconstitutional. if its not.... please do SHARE
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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://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://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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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/ (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 (http://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
-
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.
-
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.
-
I would LOVE to see California...or any state, try this.
The State's total Electoral College vote will be deemed null and void.
Make my day! :laugh:
-
I would LOVE to see California...or any state, try this.
The State's total Electoral College vote will be deemed null and void.
Make my day! :laugh:
Essentialy, if we won't do it the way the Communists want, they'll take their ball and go home. No problemo! Can the other States kick them out and declare them territories?
-
Essentialy, if we won't do it the way the Communists want, they'll take their ball and go home. No problemo! Can the other States kick them out and declare them territories?
@Smokin Joe
The REAL problem with this,unless you are Di-Fi or her husband and get a percentage of the take,is that there is NOTHING China would love more than to see the left coast break free from America and become open for colonization as soon as their money runs out. Which would basically be the day after they are set free. China needs those ports,as well as a base in America for them to operate from.
-
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.â€
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/ (https://www.independentsentinel.com/california-bill-will-take-president-trump-off-the-ballot-in-2020/)
GREAT! If they don't want to participate in Federal elections then cut off ALL Federal funding!
-
@Smokin Joe
The REAL problem with this,unless you are Di-Fi or her husband and get a percentage of the take,is that there is NOTHING China would love more than to see the left coast break free from America and become open for colonization as soon as their money runs out. Which would basically be the day after they are set free. China needs those ports,as well as a base in America for them to operate from.
Yep. They were after the naval shipyard at Long Beach when the Clintons were in office. One of the benefits of calling them Territories is that the US still retains sovereignty, rather than just kicking them to the curb. But, when the time comes, I'd rather fight the Liberals (also Communists) than the Chinese.
-
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.
Actually, I think it is mostly a state issue. The only thing the Constitution says about the selection of Presidential Electors is in Article II:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:
There doesn't even have to be voting by citizens in the state for the electors. A state could pass a law stating that the legislature itself will choose the Presidential electors when it is time for a President election. In fact, for the first couple elections, most state legislatures did choose electors directly. So, a state like California could constitutional rig future elections directly simply by stating that the state legislature will choose a slate of electors. No voting at all.
Personally, I think that if a state is permitted to do that, then it can set whatever additional requirements it wants as long as it doesn't violate some other provision of the Constitution. I don't like that result...but I think it is Constitutional. That is, unless there is some specific federal law somewhere that this would violate. But I'm not aware of any.
That being said, I'd expect the Supreme Court to say it is unconstitutional anyway simply because they wouldn't like the result, and the chaos that could result if states started actually taking Article II seriously.
-
Actually, I think it is mostly a state issue. The only thing the Constitution says about the selection of Presidential Electors is in Article II:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:
There doesn't even have to be voting by citizens in the state for the electors. A state could pass a law stating that the legislature itself will choose the Presidential electors when it is time for a President election. In fact, for the first couple elections, most state legislatures did choose electors directly. So, a state like California could constitutional rig future elections directly simply by stating that the state legislature will choose a slate of electors. No voting at all.
Personally, I think that if a state is permitted to do that, then it can set whatever additional requirements it wants as long as it doesn't violate some other provision of the Constitution. I don't like that result...but I think it is Constitutional. That is, unless there is some specific federal law somewhere that this would violate. But I'm not aware of any.
That being said, I'd expect the Supreme Court to say it is unconstitutional anyway simply because they wouldn't like the result, and the chaos that could result if states started actually taking Article II seriously.
Amendment XII - https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-xii
-
Amendment XII - https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-xii
Honestly, the Twelth Amendment has nothing to do with my point.
My point address how electors are chosen within each state.
The 12th Amendment addresses how the electors themselves actually vote.
-
Actually, I think it is mostly a state issue. The only thing the Constitution says about the selection of Presidential Electors is in Article II:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:
There doesn't even have to be voting by citizens in the state for the electors. A state could pass a law stating that the legislature itself will choose the Presidential electors when it is time for a President election. In fact, for the first couple elections, most state legislatures did choose electors directly. So, a state like California could constitutional rig future elections directly simply by stating that the state legislature will choose a slate of electors. No voting at all.
Personally, I think that if a state is permitted to do that, then it can set whatever additional requirements it wants as long as it doesn't violate some other provision of the Constitution. I don't like that result...but I think it is Constitutional. That is, unless there is some specific federal law somewhere that this would violate. But I'm not aware of any.
That being said, I'd expect the Supreme Court to say it is unconstitutional anyway simply because they wouldn't like the result, and the chaos that could result if states started actually taking Article II seriously.
It would boil down to whether the States have the right to tack on extra qualifications and raise the minimum standard of eligibility. I'm not sure they can.
-
It wasn't long ago, many here were cheering or hoping for various Secretaries of State to block Obama from the ballot in their respective States.
Some may not like it, but the Constitution give States the power to oversee how elections are conducted, including how to qualify for the ballot.
Not everyone who wants to run for president can get on every ballot across the country. Every State has different qualifications.
Some States make it so difficult with such a high threshold of qualification, that only the two major party candidates can meet that threshold. Other States make it so easy, you have candidates like Vermin Supreme and Deez Nuts on the ballot.
Or do we only apply Federalism when it suits our whims?
-
It would boil down to whether the States have the right to tack on extra qualifications and raise the minimum standard of eligibility. I'm not sure they can.
Many States do it every legislative cycle. Here in Texas, they are currently making a move to make it more difficult for Libertarians and other third party candidates to qualify, even though (and because) they did so well in the last election they would normally have an automatic qualification in the next cycle.
-
It wasn't long ago, many here were cheering or hoping for various Secretaries of State to block Obama from the ballot in their respective States.
Some may not like it, but the Constitution give States the power to oversee how elections are conducted, including how to qualify for the ballot.
Not everyone who wants to run for president can get on every ballot across the country. Every State has different qualifications.
Some States make it so difficult with such a high threshold of qualification, that only the two major party candidates can meet that threshold. Other States make it so easy, you have candidates like Vermin Supreme and Deez Nuts on the ballot.
Or do we only apply Federalism when it suits our whims?
That totally disingenuous, @ABX
It's NOT the States that get to say who's eligible to be on their ballot. The CONSTITUTION sets the criteria to run for the office.
If they play games with their electoral votes...render them ALL null and void. And then place the appropriate people under arrest for sedition.
-
It wasn't long ago, many here were cheering or hoping for various Secretaries of State to block Obama from the ballot in their respective States.
Some may not like it, but the Constitution give States the power to oversee how elections are conducted, including how to qualify for the ballot.
Not everyone who wants to run for president can get on every ballot across the country. Every State has different qualifications.
Some States make it so difficult with such a high threshold of qualification, that only the two major party candidates can meet that threshold. Other States make it so easy, you have candidates like Vermin Supreme and Deez Nuts on the ballot.
Or do we only apply Federalism when it suits our whims?
Conversely, you could go so far the other direction that it starts getting used for political assassination, like what is being attempted here against Trump. Or worse, rigging it so that the minority party candidate couldn't get on the ballot.
I get, even if I don't always agree, with stricter requirements for things such as signatures, party representation, or financial requirements and the like that apply to all, but not things like this that are obviously targeted to one person.
If you open that door, where does it end?
-
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.
I think we need to consolidate. Why should the Northeast get so many States, why is Rhode Island even a State? They should just combine all the New England states into Massachusetts.
-
It would boil down to whether the States have the right to tack on extra qualifications and raise the minimum standard of eligibility. I'm not sure they can.
Well...they're not changing the qualifications for President. They're just changing how their state's electors will vote. To put it differently, a state could simply eliminate the popular vote within the state for the choosing of electors, and have the legislature do it. And then legislators could say "I'm not voting for anyone unless they release their tax return", and nobody could challenge that. All that being said, I do think the Supreme Court would shoot it down.
-
That totally disingenuous, @ABX
It's NOT the States that get to say who's eligible to be on their ballot. The CONSTITUTION sets the criteria to run for the office.
If they play games with their electoral votes...render them ALL null and void. And then place the appropriate people under arrest for sedition.
You are confusing eligibility to hold the office with eligibility to be on any specific ballot. The Constitution give the states the mandate over the latter.
Not every person in every state qualifies to be on the ballot just because they file. Otherwise would have had 600+ choices the past election.
-
It's NOT the States that get to say who's eligible to be on their ballot. The CONSTITUTION sets the criteria to run for the office.
Being on the ballot and being legally eligible to hold office are not the same thing. At least, we better hope they aren't. Because there are probably 100 million or so of us eligible to run for office. And if we all could demand a position on the ballot as a matter of constitutional right, elections would become impossible.
You're always free to write in anyone you choose.
-
You are confusing eligibility to hold the office with eligibility to be on any specific ballot. The Constitution give the states the mandate over the latter.
Not every person in every state qualifies to be on the ballot just because they file. Otherwise would have had 600+ choices the past election.
It seems we temporarily have a hive mind....
-
Well...they're not changing the qualifications for President. They're just changing how their state's electors will vote. To put it differently, a state could simply eliminate the popular vote within the state for the choosing of electors, and have the legislature do it. And then legislators could say "I'm not voting for anyone unless they release their tax return", and nobody could challenge that. All that being said, I do think the Supreme Court would shoot it down.
True, but this looks to be an eligibility just to get on the ballot issue. If you let states jack around too much with that, it could be very much weaponized, like CA is trying to do here.
-
Who is "California Bill"?
-
Who is "California Bill"?
I think he's that old hippie that lives in a van down by the river.
-
Who is "California Bill"?
He's that jackwagon that sells surfer shirts on TV.
-
I think he's that old hippie that lives in a van down by the river.
He's that jackwagon that sells surfer shirts on TV.
I thought so. Just another liberal hippie sh*t head.
-
@libertybele
You know I taught Texas Election Law so I know about other states' election laws when it comes to putting names on their ballot. Every state, individually, determines on their own, what criteria they will use to put names on their ballot. There are some states that will only put a name on the ballot if the candidate gets a set amount of signatures from voters - there is no other option. What happens is, the candidate's workers get those names. If the candidate does not get the required amount, the name does not go on the ballot.
It appears this is what is happening - these states are changing their law in order to limit the option to get the name on the ballot, to voter signatures ONLY- leaving no other option for the candidate to get his/her name on there. The main point here is each state can determine what criteria they want to use for putting a name on the ballot.
-
You are confusing eligibility to hold the office with eligibility to be on any specific ballot. The Constitution give the states the mandate over the latter.
Not every person in every state qualifies to be on the ballot just because they file. Otherwise would have had 600+ choices the past election.
My point was that Obama was challenged on his eligibility. Using the Constitution in their argument.
My other point is that any state that dicks around with the Electoral College, in an attempt to keep a name off the Presidential Ballot shall forfeit their entire EC vote total.
-
You are confusing eligibility to hold the office with eligibility to be on any specific ballot. The Constitution give the states the mandate over the latter.
Actually, Supreme Court precedent says that's not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Term_Limits,_Inc._v._Thornton
-
Actually, Supreme Court precedent says that's not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Term_Limits,_Inc._v._Thornton
:beer: :patriot:
-
Yep. They were after the naval shipyard at Long Beach when the Clintons were in office.
@Smokin Joe
They actually had at least a part of Long Beach under long-term lease. That was where the US headquarters for Norinco was. The BATF ran an investigation and had proof Norinco was smuggling actual AK's into the US as semi-auto AK's,and was set to raid the offices and arrest all the officials.
What went wrong was they had to brief a US Senate Committee that was chaired by Di-Fi the day before the raid to explain and justify the raid. They had undercover agents posing as biker clubs and Mexican gang members that had videotaped them paying off Norinco officials for full-auto weapons,so it was a slam dunk.
Then,somehow,mysteriously,the Norinco officials got word of the raid that afternoon,and by dark not a single one of them was in the US to be arrested. The raid did find crates of full-auto AK's,but there was nobody there left to arrest,and no paperwork.
I am almost positive the fact that Di-Fi's husband being the Norinco lawyer in the US had nothing to do with them being tipped off right after the Senate briefing.
-
@Smokin Joe
They actually had at least a part of Long Beach under long-term lease. That was where the US headquarters for Norinco was. The BATF ran an investigation and had proof Norinco was smuggling actual AK's into the US as semi-auto AK's,and was set to raid the offices and arrest all the officials.
What went wrong was they had to brief a US Senate Committee that was chaired by Di-Fi the day before the raid to explain and justify the raid. They had undercover agents posing as biker clubs and Mexican gang members that had videotaped them paying off Norinco officials for full-auto weapons,so it was a slam dunk.
Then,somehow,mysteriously,the Norinco officials got word of the raid that afternoon,and by dark not a single one of them was in the US to be arrested. The raid did find crates of full-auto AK's,but there was nobody there left to arrest,and no paperwork.
I am almost positive the fact that Di-Fi's husband being the Norinco lawyer in the US had nothing to do with them being tipped off right after the Senate briefing.
But she wants us to "turn them all in Mr. and Mrs. America!"
-
We really should be encouraging the Calexit movement. We can either let them go, on condition that they let counties adjacent to other states hold plebiscites on whether to remain in seceded California or join a neighboring state, give us a perpetual lease on a naval base or two, and enter into a free trade agreement (too many supply chains run through CA), and accept a share of the Federal national debt split on some basis considering both population and GDP, or we can give them the Sherman treatment, after which, radical reconstruction. Either way we're rid of a huge 'Rat congressional delegation and locked 'Rat electoral votes (at least until the reconstructed territories are readmitted to the Union in the second case).
-
Well...they're not changing the qualifications for President. They're just changing how their state's electors will vote. To put it differently, a state could simply eliminate the popular vote within the state for the choosing of electors, and have the legislature do it. And then legislators could say "I'm not voting for anyone unless they release their tax return", and nobody could challenge that. All that being said, I do think the Supreme Court would shoot it down.
In speaking to the local Supervisor of Elections here each county can set their own rules but must adhere to State laws and each State may set their own rules by must adhere to Federal Election laws.
In other words they can have policies in place as long as they comply with federal laws.
-
Who is "California Bill"?
I know. Everytime I see this thread I wonder if he's related to Florida Man.
-
I know. Everytime I see this thread I wonder if he's related to Florida Man.
:pondering:
lol
-
:pondering:
lol
@The Ghost @Sanguine
Like Florida man,but queer.
-
@The Ghost @Sanguine
Like Florida man,but queer.
I know. Everytime I see this thread I wonder if he's related to Florida Man.
Saw this headline today!
"Florida man arrested after refusing to remove ‘I eat a–’ bumper sticker"
-
Saw this headline today!
"Florida man arrested after refusing to remove ‘I eat a–’ bumper sticker"
@The Ghost
Would have been REALLY funny if someone had slapped a "You are what you eat!" bumper sticker next to it.
-
David wrote:
"We can either let them go, on condition that they let counties adjacent to other states hold plebiscites on whether to remain in seceded California or join a neighboring state, give us a perpetual lease on a naval base or two, and enter into a free trade agreement (too many supply chains run through CA), and accept a share of the Federal national debt split on some basis considering both population and GDP, or we can give them the Sherman treatment, after which, radical reconstruction."
I advocate option #2.
It's the only way to bring that state back into the fold.
It worked the last time it was tried.
It will work again.
-
Trump said he couldn't release his tax returns because of audits during campaign. I don't agree with California but what is he hiding?
-
He should take this through the Courts and I suspect he will but who here thought he's win Californication anyway, or Oregon and Washington for that matter.
-
He should take this through the Courts and I suspect he will but who here thought he's win Californication anyway, or Oregon and Washington for that matter.
Of course not, but allowing this to go on unchallenged leaves the door wide open to eliminate the electoral college without an amendment to the Constitution. It would also open the door to allow states to make any changes in order to steal elections. Each state can set up their own parameters as to what candidates must do to qualify to get on the ballot, but they must adhere to federal laws.
-
Of course not, but allowing this to go on unchallenged leaves the door wide open to eliminate the electoral college without an amendment to the Constitution. It would also open the door to allow states to make any changes in order to steal elections. Each state can set up their own parameters as to what candidates must do to qualify to get on the ballot, but they must adhere to federal laws.
@libertybele
All of which are reasons why the left wants this to happen. They want "Moscow Elections",where the powers behind the throne decide who the winner is before the ballots are printed
-
@libertybele
All of which are reasons why the left wants this to happen. They want "Moscow Elections",where the powers behind the throne decide who the winner is before the ballots are printed
I think they thought they had that already, hence the total meltdown on the Left when Hitlery didn't win.
Maybe they just believed the BS that a vote not for Trump was a vote for her. (It generally just wasn't a vote for either one).
-
I think they thought they had that already, hence the total meltdown on the Left when Hitlery didn't win.
@Smokin Joe
I think their general reaction was "We wuz robbed! We stole that election fair and square,and wuz cheated!"
Maybe they just believed the BS that a vote not for Trump was a vote for her. (It generally just wasn't a vote for either one).
I think that is a very real possibility. They really do believe their own propaganda. And why wouldn't they,since they are smarter than all the Rubes in America put together. Don't believe it,just ask them.