HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Lawmakers Pass Bill to Fo...

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 09:57 AM

Lawmakers Pass Bill to Force Trump to Release Tax Returns or Be Left Off Ballot

Source: Law & Crime


by Ronn Blitzer | 8:37 am, February 22nd, 2019

Ever since President Donald Trump was campaigning going into the 2016 election, people have called for him to release his tax returns, a tradition followed by candidates for decades. It never came to pass, with Trump claiming he was under audit. Now, as the country prepares for the next election cycle, lawmakers in New Jersey are trying to force Trump’s hand with an ultimatum: turn over the tax returns, or be left off the ballot.

The State Senate passed a bill on Thursday that would require presidential and vice presidential candidates to release their tax returns for the previous five years—at least 50 days before the general election—in order to qualify to have their names on the ballot. The bill says that they would have to file copies with the Division of Elections in the Department of State, and also consent to having them made public. The Division of Elections would then post them online within seven days of receiving them. The bill does allow for redactions to be made, where the Division and State Attorney General deem appropriate. The bill, known as S-119, also aims to block a loophole by preventing the state’s electors from going off on their own and voting for someone who doesn’t comply.

“An elector shall not vote for a candidate for President or Vice-President of the United States, unless the candidate had filed, or caused to be filed, the candidate’s federal income tax return in accordance with [the bill],” it says.

The bill says it would go into effect immediately, upon being signed into law, to ensure that it applies to the next presidential election.

Read more: https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/lawmakers-pass-bill-to-force-trump-to-release-tax-returns-or-be-left-off-ballot/

81 replies, 9321 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 81 replies Author Time Post
Reply Lawmakers Pass Bill to Force Trump to Release Tax Returns or Be Left Off Ballot (Original post)
DonViejo Feb 2019 OP
Bengus81 Feb 2019 #1
getagrip_already Feb 2019 #25
sdfernando Feb 2019 #37
lindysalsagal Feb 2019 #39
C Moon Feb 2019 #60
sdfernando Feb 2019 #68
C Moon Feb 2019 #69
zentrum Feb 2019 #38
getagrip_already Feb 2019 #42
politicaljunkie41910 Feb 2019 #49
zentrum Feb 2019 #58
onit2day Feb 2019 #59
diva77 Feb 2019 #61
zentrum Feb 2019 #66
zentrum Feb 2019 #65
True Blue American Feb 2019 #62
Bradical79 Feb 2019 #70
getagrip_already Feb 2019 #72
California_Republic Feb 2019 #2
3Hotdogs Feb 2019 #32
doompatrol39 Feb 2019 #41
3Hotdogs Feb 2019 #57
doompatrol39 Feb 2019 #67
WiseElder Feb 2019 #3
Major Nikon Feb 2019 #6
not fooled Feb 2019 #18
SoCalNative Feb 2019 #45
Major Nikon Feb 2019 #48
Angleae Feb 2019 #63
lagomorph777 Feb 2019 #15
politicaljunkie41910 Feb 2019 #51
Faux pas Feb 2019 #4
SergeStorms Feb 2019 #5
lagomorph777 Feb 2019 #16
SergeStorms Feb 2019 #54
paleotn Feb 2019 #55
lagomorph777 Feb 2019 #56
TryLogic Feb 2019 #7
rickford66 Feb 2019 #10
lagomorph777 Feb 2019 #17
rickford66 Feb 2019 #19
lagomorph777 Feb 2019 #20
rickford66 Feb 2019 #23
bottomofthehill Feb 2019 #8
KPN Feb 2019 #9
getagrip_already Feb 2019 #26
KPN Feb 2019 #27
getagrip_already Feb 2019 #30
KPN Feb 2019 #33
getagrip_already Feb 2019 #35
True Blue American Feb 2019 #11
thesquanderer Feb 2019 #12
Danascot Feb 2019 #13
ffr Feb 2019 #14
Julian Englis Feb 2019 #21
Duppers Feb 2019 #31
Shoonra Feb 2019 #22
SWBTATTReg Feb 2019 #24
beachbum bob Feb 2019 #28
Bradical79 Feb 2019 #78
Duppers Feb 2019 #29
BlueIdaho Feb 2019 #34
Duppers Feb 2019 #46
BlueIdaho Feb 2019 #50
Bernardo de La Paz Feb 2019 #36
question everything Feb 2019 #40
getagrip_already Feb 2019 #43
AncientGeezer Feb 2019 #44
Bradical79 Feb 2019 #71
AncientGeezer Feb 2019 #74
Bradical79 Feb 2019 #75
AncientGeezer Feb 2019 #76
Bradical79 Feb 2019 #77
AncientGeezer Feb 2019 #79
Angleae Feb 2019 #80
AncientGeezer Feb 2019 #81
akraven Feb 2019 #47
stonecutter357 Feb 2019 #52
Maxheader Feb 2019 #53
zaj Feb 2019 #64
zanana1 Feb 2019 #73

Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 09:59 AM

1. LOL!! Love it!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bengus81 (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 12:11 PM

25. applies to bernie also.....

trump isn't the only candidate to not release them.

And doesn't CA also have a bill like this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to getagrip_already (Reply #25)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 12:35 PM

37. CA Legislature passed a bill similar to this but Gov. Brown veto'ed it. /NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sdfernando (Reply #37)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 12:40 PM

39. Never heard that one before, and I thought I'd heard them all. True, that...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sdfernando (Reply #37)

Sat Feb 23, 2019, 02:38 AM

60. Yes. But I understand his stance (it wasn't personal, because he wasn't going to be running anymore)

"Today we require tax returns, but what would be next? Five years of health records? A certified birth certificate? High school report cards? And will these requirements vary depending on which political party is in power?”

It could open the flood gates for parties to use it as a tool to stay in power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to C Moon (Reply #60)

Sat Feb 23, 2019, 04:41 PM

68. I think it was a weak argument

Health records? We already get yearly reports on the presidents health through his physical. The rigors of the campaign will give us a good idea of what kind of health the candidate is in.

Tax returns I think are unique in that they can show us if a candidate has financial entanglements to foreign governments and how deep they go. Would the candidate work to help those entities even against our countries interest? It’s not like the candidates haven’t been doing it already...we’re just making sure they do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sdfernando (Reply #68)

Sun Feb 24, 2019, 06:11 AM

69. I agree with you, but I think what he was saying is that this would open the flood gates for OTHER

"proven" documentation to be included for every candidate—and we know how the GOP operates: they would bend this rule for use as a tool to weed out great Democratic candidates.

Again, he didn't do this because he was planning on running again and not showing his taxes. He's an insightful, good Democrat, and I think he saw this as a tool that would be abused.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to getagrip_already (Reply #25)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 12:36 PM

38. getagrip....Bernie

...wasn't on the Presidential ballot for the general election.

He was in the primaries only.

He campaigned for HRC.

Would only have to compy if he actually becomes the 2020 Candidate for President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zentrum (Reply #38)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 12:49 PM

42. But don't primary voters deserve to know this information before nominating a potentially damaged ca

But don't primary voters deserve to know this information before nominating a potentially damaged candidate?

There is only one reason to NOT release them early. You are HIDING something you don't want to deal with.

Once a candidate makes it to the nomination, it's too LATE to find out there is something damaging in there.

We need to know before we vote. Not after. We deserve the best possible candidate; not one that is hiding something to get to the nomination when it's too late to do anything about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to getagrip_already (Reply #42)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 02:55 PM

49. Good answer. Thanks for your quick comeback.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to getagrip_already (Reply #42)

Sat Feb 23, 2019, 12:12 AM

58. I guess by

...your rule of having "something to hide", we primary voters also deserved to see the promised speeches to Wall Street that Hillary kept saying she would release.

If Bernie is indeed hiding something "bad" in his taxes he should pay up and also pay the political price. But the fact is, even by just being in the primary, he had a galvanizing, extremely positive effect on the Party because many of his main ideas are now the Platform of the next candidates and have entered the mainstream conversation nationally, even though once branded as "radical".

Medicare for All, addressing student debt, and raising the minimum wage are far more important than anything that could be "lurking" in Bernie's taxes, who by the way is on the lower to middling end of income for members of Congress. But he's in a bracket where his own taxes would go up if the progressive tax reform he advocates were ever to be passed. He's all for that happening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zentrum (Reply #58)

Sat Feb 23, 2019, 01:12 AM

59. The 2 page return Bernie released would satisfy this rule. But why r u so fixed on his tax

 

returns. You never fail to mention them anytime Bernie's name comes up. The man is noted in congress over the years as being the most honest man in congress by his peers never seeking to enrich himself as so many do. It makes me suspicious of your motives. Would you feel this way if it were any other dem candidate? They aren't wealthy or dishonest but seems to me you keep looking for something to attack him with. Bernie deserves our respect for his tireless efforts to aid the working class and the poor and our party, always campaigning to get Dem candidates elected, always fund raising for democratic candidates. Yet, only words you write are...taxes? What do you think is sooo important about his taxes that would negate all the good he does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onit2day (Reply #59)

Sat Feb 23, 2019, 04:02 AM

61. Agree!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to diva77 (Reply #61)

Sat Feb 23, 2019, 10:03 AM

66. Me too!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onit2day (Reply #59)

Sat Feb 23, 2019, 10:03 AM

65. Hi onit2day

This thread has gotten confused. I'm not the one focused on Bernie's taxes or against Bernie. I'm answering another poster who is. I think Bernie's presence has been a Party and National boon. I think it's completely non-productive to keep attacking him, for his primary run, as many have since 2016. So I try to give a tempered response to the attack when possible.

Have a nice day!





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to getagrip_already (Reply #42)

Sat Feb 23, 2019, 05:20 AM

62. Yes, they should.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to getagrip_already (Reply #25)

Sun Feb 24, 2019, 08:56 AM

70. Only if he wins the primaries

 

Though he probably should release some before primaries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bradical79 (Reply #70)

Sun Feb 24, 2019, 10:48 AM

72. he should release everything before the primaries....

That way there are no surprises. Look, if he can't be honest now, why should he get any support now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 10:03 AM

2. New Jersey. Great idea!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to California_Republic (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 12:23 PM

32. Useless. The Orange Dipshit would never win New Jersey anyway.

He will get vote in southern N.J. but that's about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 3Hotdogs (Reply #32)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 12:48 PM

41. I'm in Northern NJ

 

And believe me we have plenty of Trump voters up here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doompatrol39 (Reply #41)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 06:26 PM

57. I forgot about northern Passaic and Sussex.

I was thinking about Ocean and points south. You will see Trump lawn signs M.A.G.A. hats and billboards.

I live in Essex and you won't see many such signs north of 190. However, I was on a Hunterdon County Hiking Club hike last Friday. One guy was pointing out that he was a Repub. but didn't like Trump. He also didn't like Socialists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 3Hotdogs (Reply #57)

Sat Feb 23, 2019, 12:50 PM

67. Essex and Bergen are pretty blue.

 

I'm in Morris which is pretty mixed. You don't have the wannabe Southern Rednecks from out in Sussex, and there are parts that are diverse demographically. But you also do have the wealthy enclaves which can go either way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 10:03 AM

3. Legal challenge will sadly go beyond 2020

Sadly, Bound to be a court challenge if passed that will tie it up beyond Trump's time even if he's jailed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WiseElder (Reply #3)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 10:59 AM

6. Not necessarily

It would almost certainly have to be a state legal challenge and not a federal one as the feds have almost no control over how states manage their electors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #6)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 11:40 AM

18. Ooohhh

That is GREAT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #6)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 02:01 PM

45. Except that presidential qualifications

are outlined in the Constitution, so it could be challenged on a federal level.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoCalNative (Reply #45)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 02:07 PM

48. Anything can be challenged, the question is how far they'd get

The Constitution lays out eligibility requirements to hold the office, but says nothing about how states can hold electoral college electors accountable for their votes. The rules vary widely between states and have almost never been challenged at the federal level.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoCalNative (Reply #45)

Sat Feb 23, 2019, 06:38 AM

63. There is also no popular election for president in the Constitution.

It is a state-by-state popularity contest, not an election, therefore entirely state run.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WiseElder (Reply #3)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 11:35 AM

15. Well worth fighting for and expanding to many states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #15)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 03:09 PM

51. They should consider expanding the deadline further out than 50 days before the general election.

Perhaps at least 100 days before the general because someone will likely file a lawsuit and the courts may not want to expedite their claim. Or else they might say they have to file it with their candidate application. Also, if the return filed is not complete, the candidate would be ineligible to have his/her name on the ballot. If they're going to do it, they will have to anticipate everything that Trump might try to pull in order not to comply. During the last election he brought out all those boxes claiming that was his tax return. Later it was revealed that those boxes all contained blank paper.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 10:23 AM

4. Kicketty Kickin'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 10:41 AM

5. There's no law that says Trump has to release his tax returns.

Of course there's no law that says a sitting President of the United States can't be indicted, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SergeStorms (Reply #5)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 11:37 AM

16. I've seen posters here claiming the Constitution says you can't indict.

In reality of course, the Constitution explicitly says you can indict, with no restriction on timing.

Those posters are utterly full of shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #16)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 03:27 PM

54. Right you are.

The decision not to indict a sitting president arose from Spiro Agnew's crimes as Vice President. They had to decide if a sitting Vice President could be indicted. They threw a dart at the dartboard and it landed on "cannot indict". It could very easily have gone the other way. This was discussed on TRMS Thursday night. The SDNY supposedly is considering indicting Trump. Wouldn't that be a hoot!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #16)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 05:16 PM

55. It's silent on that issue

It states impeachment is a means of removal, but doesn’t say iit’s the only means. I love how “originalists” tie themselves in knots trying to infer that the constitution precludes indictment prior to impeachment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to paleotn (Reply #55)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 05:20 PM

56. Au contraire. Article 1 Section 3

Clause 7: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party, (defendant), convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 10:59 AM

7. State Senate. What State???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TryLogic (Reply #7)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 11:06 AM

10. Isn't the article about New Jersey ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rickford66 (Reply #10)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 11:37 AM

17. You have to click through to figure that out. Would be nice to include in the OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #17)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 11:48 AM

19. Look at the third line of the post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rickford66 (Reply #19)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 11:51 AM

20. Oops.

I need more covfefe this morning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #20)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 12:05 PM

23. No problem

I have covfefe every morning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 11:03 AM

8. St Bernie too would have to release his taxes.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bottomofthehill (Reply #8)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 11:05 AM

9. Yup. If he's even on the ballot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Reply #9)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 12:13 PM

26. The dem party should make it a primary requirement... n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to getagrip_already (Reply #26)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 12:14 PM

27. I think they have haven't they?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Reply #27)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 12:18 PM

30. not as of the 2016 election....

As far as bernie rode that dead horse of a campaign, he never released his taxes.

Candidates need to release them before the first primary. If it is important information, we need to know BEFORE we are committed to a damaged candidate.

The ONLY reason to not release them is because there is something to hide. We don't need to nominate a candidate with baggage we don't know about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to getagrip_already (Reply #30)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 12:23 PM

33. I'm talking about for 2020.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Reply #33)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 12:25 PM

35. haven't heard but....

If someone can confirm I'd love to hear it.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 11:11 AM

11. That law should

Be before they are allowed to run! Should be in the rules of the DNC, too!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 11:11 AM

12. Trump would give up his place on the NJ ballot before releasing his returns.

It's not like he'd win NJ anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 11:29 AM

13. New York was going to do the same thing

I never heard what happened to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 11:32 AM

14. Whoa! K&R

That's awesome!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 12:00 PM

21. Democrats in Pennsylvania, Virginia, Michigan, & other swing states need to introduce this....

Make transparency and corruption an issue--it's a winner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Julian Englis (Reply #21)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 12:19 PM

31. Exactly! 👍

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 12:04 PM

22. This is a New Jersey proposal

This proposed state law is in New Jersey and it is just barely possible, especially after mistreating Chris Christie, that Trump is willing to forfeit a spot on NJ's ballot rather than reveal his taxes.

It would help if several other states, especially the ones big in the electoral college, passed similar laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 12:06 PM

24. About time, but I suspect that there will be challenges to it before long. We need this for...

I think (and I know a lot of DUers believe it too) that rump is clearly influenced quite a bit by his business interests over those that concern the country more. Far more partial to his business interests that our country's.

By removing these potential conflicts of interest, we eliminate potentially disruptive influences from the whole legislative and/or executive branches of government.

Still need to rein in the dark money surrounding the election process too, as well addressing Citizen's United which pretty well opened the floodgates to a lot of dark money.

I don't want billionaires and millionaires making all of the laws in this country nor do I want them in charge 100% of picking and / or hiring all of the people to enforce such laws, for I feel like they are discriminatory in their enforcement of selective laws in some cases. Perhaps a wealth clause in those who wish to run for president and / or congress?

The highest office in the land shouldn't be treated like a boardroom of a major corporation or business. This office serves ALL Americans, regardless of their status in life, from the beggar on the street to the corporate billionaire in their jet. All treated equally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 12:15 PM

28. more than likely will be ruled unconstitutional....

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beachbum bob (Reply #28)

Wed Feb 27, 2019, 04:03 PM

78. There are already ballot access laws in every state

 

What would make this one different?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 12:17 PM

29. THIS needs to be done in every state

Of course the red states won't but wouldn't it certainly put a monkey wrench into the national election. Can it be challenged in the courts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duppers (Reply #29)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 12:24 PM

34. While I Agree...

It really only takes a few larger states to destroy anyone’s ability to win the Presidency. Add New York, California, Oregon, and Washington State to New Jersey and that may be enough to scuttle any Presidential fun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueIdaho (Reply #34)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 02:03 PM

46. True. Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duppers (Reply #46)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 03:08 PM

50. Happy to help.

👍🏻

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 12:33 PM

36. Comment could have been added to make it clear this is New Jersey without clicking thru. . . . nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 12:46 PM

40. Would help if you say which stte

"Lawmakers" "State Senate"

Only the name of the publication gives us a hint

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 12:52 PM

43. California needs to bring this up again and pass it this time.....

For both primary and general elections.

Full stop. Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 12:53 PM

44. I'm thinking the would be a 8-1, 9-0 ruling in SCOTUS as unconstitutional if it got there.

 

That said....Dumpster couldn't win Jersey if he farmed in his entire extended family and those of his indicted associates.
Hillary crushed him in Jersey....Jersey will never vote for him.
Being on the ballot there....it's a waste of Jersey Election money to put him on the ballot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AncientGeezer (Reply #44)

Sun Feb 24, 2019, 09:00 AM

71. Not sure why that would be

 

States already make rules for who does, and doesn't, end up on the ballot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bradical79 (Reply #71)

Wed Feb 27, 2019, 08:46 AM

74. Simple....Constitution...Re: POTUS elegibility.

 

The Constitution sets the requirements for POTUS...
The Constitution has supremacy over state laws and state Constitutions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AncientGeezer (Reply #74)

Wed Feb 27, 2019, 11:18 AM

75. It doesn't affect the qualifications though

 

Only adds an easily obtainable neutral low barrier of entry to appear on the ballot in a specific state. The Constitution doesn't mandate a ballot, or even a popular vote, for President. It's why you don't get every yahoo in the nation who wants to be President on the ballot. It's why some ballots will have Jill Stein on them, and others might not.

The ballot could even have someone who doesn't qualify at all, should the state allow it, the electors would just ignore such a person when casting their votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bradical79 (Reply #75)

Wed Feb 27, 2019, 02:53 PM

76. Totally incorrect.."It doesn't affect the qualifications though" It would do Exactly that.

 

Adds a requirement NOT required by the Constitution for POTUS.
POTUS is a Federal deal, Article II...the election of POTUS and the requirements to be are spelled out in the Constitution.

I refer you to the Supremacy Clause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AncientGeezer (Reply #76)

Wed Feb 27, 2019, 03:23 PM

77. And you're wrong.

 

Not being on the ballot in a single state doesn't mean you can't be President. If it weren't Consitutional, your ballot would look very very different.

Edit: and if you read the Constitution it only lays out the method in which the Electors vote for President. How those electors are chosen is explicitly up to the States to decide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bradical79 (Reply #77)

Wed Feb 27, 2019, 04:32 PM

79. Requirement for POTUS eligibilty is in the Constitution

 

The Supremacy clause is clear....for a State to add requirement to being eligible Would violate that clause.

ArtII clearly says.....
"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State SHALL(not May) 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: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

If a State were to try to block a duly nominated POTUS nominee for lack of disclosure of Tax returns....SCOTUS would be 8-1, 9-0 ruling it Unconstitutional.

What would stop Red States from blocking Sec. Clinton for not disclosing all the emails they wanted..President Obama in his runs for no college transcripts, Sanders and his taxes...any reason to keep a Democratic nominee off the ballot in those States?
Won't happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AncientGeezer (Reply #79)

Wed Feb 27, 2019, 11:40 PM

80. Except the people aren't actually electing a president.

It's state-sanctioned popularity contest for the people to tell their legislature who they would like them to elect as president. The legislature is under no obligation to honor such. As such, the state can put whatever additional requirements they want on it provided it does not violate some other federal/state statute such as requiring member to be certain race/sex/religion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angleae (Reply #80)

Thu Feb 28, 2019, 04:21 PM

81. "..provided it does not violate some other federal/state statute.."

 

Which is exactly what this would do...The Constitution is clear on THE requirements to run for POTUS.

I'd bet my rater substantial cat food budget(she's a lard ass) SCOTUS would see that as a political maneuver..and as I said...8-1, 9-0 striking it.
Ca. Gov Jerry Brown vetoed a similar bill...and I know why.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 02:05 PM

47. This is awesome and necessary.

I can imagine the RW screams. And exploding heads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 03:11 PM

52. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2019, 03:12 PM

53. Never happen..


Or the returns will be bogus..STumpy doesn't abide by laws...it doesn't want to...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2019, 07:02 AM

64. Good start, but has to be a state that matters in the general

Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Feb 24, 2019, 01:12 PM

73. It's a bill.

It hasn't been passed into law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread