Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lawmakers OK giving Trump a choice: Release taxes or skip California primary
San Francisco Chronicle ^ | July 11, 2019 | Alexei Koseff

Posted on 07/11/2019 3:53:52 PM PDT by Coronal

SACRAMENTO — California lawmakers are seeking once again to force President Trump to release his tax returns by blocking access to the state primary election ballot if he does not.

The matter is now in the hands of Gov. Gavin Newsom, after the state Senate gave final approval Thursday to SB27, which would require presidential candidates to release their last five years of income tax returns in order to be eligible for the primary election in California.

(Excerpt) Read more at sfchronicle.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: california; democrats
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 next last
To: Coronal

Unconstitutional and just about the stupidest thing to come out of the once- great state of californication Today, anyway. Snicker snicker snicker. The whole world laughed at these clowns


41 posted on 07/11/2019 4:56:32 PM PDT by faithhopecharity ( “Politicians are not born; they are excreted.” Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 to 43 BCE))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coronal

Only the Communist Party puts a gun to your head to force you to do something.
Laws are written to apply equally to all.
Except for CA when they only apply to Republicans.


42 posted on 07/11/2019 4:56:36 PM PDT by Zathras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coronal

In typical Democrat hypocrisy, a made-up requirement for the Republican primary ballot will be imposed on Trump, but a real requirement (natural born citizen) for Harris will be overlooked for the Democrat primary ballot. She is an anchor baby of two foreign nationals.


43 posted on 07/11/2019 5:00:49 PM PDT by SERKIT ("Blazing Saddles" explains it all.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeganC

No I was referring to the last two U.S. Senate elections, not state senate. The ‘Jungle Primary’ that Cal uses says the top two finishers in the primary make the final ballot, regardless if they are in the same party. So in 2016 and 2014 Californians got to pick which democrat they wanted in the U.S. Senate.

Although born and raised in California, I’ve been living in Missouri for the better part of the last half century. I don’t regret leaving the Golden State one bit.


44 posted on 07/11/2019 5:04:23 PM PDT by hanamizu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Pilgrim's Progress
The question is what will Chief Justice John Roberts do

Roberts is a communists Democrat.

45 posted on 07/11/2019 5:05:50 PM PDT by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: monkeyshine

Thank you, Mr. Monk.


46 posted on 07/11/2019 5:07:41 PM PDT by Pilgrim's Progress (http://www.baptistbiblebelievers.com/BYTOPICS/tabid/335/Default.aspx D)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: SERKIT

“... a real requirement (natural born citizen) for Harris will be overlooked for the Democrat primary ballot.”


An upside will be if they keep President Trump off of the ballot in 2020, it will blast a huge hole in the whole “but she won the national popular vote” business. President Trump’s chances of actually winning California’s Electoral votes is pretty slim, so let them do their worst. As I said earlier, it won’t be the first time democrats have kept a Republican off of the Presidential ballot.


47 posted on 07/11/2019 5:09:19 PM PDT by hanamizu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: mlo

The states have carte blanche to decide how they pick electors. I see nothing unconstitutional about this bill.
***********
So California, and all the states with Democrat legislatures as soon as they assumed power, could decide that their electors would always go to the Democrats, even if their voters wanted to change their minds, effectively precluding us from ever having a Republican president? That’s not what our founding fathers intended, even though the Democrats, developing a sudden yen for language literalism, could argue to the contrary.


48 posted on 07/11/2019 5:18:05 PM PDT by Socon-Econ (adical Islam,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

Gotta sue to make sure they can’t set precedent.


49 posted on 07/11/2019 5:27:16 PM PDT by richardtavor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: JMS

I swear the godforsaken state I live in is infested with commies and the most hateful people on the planet


50 posted on 07/11/2019 5:35:09 PM PDT by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: monkeyshine
"The Constitution spells out eligibility for office of POTUS and it says nothing about “must release tax returns”."

That would be an issue if California chose electors that wanted an unqualified candidate. It has nothing to do with this. And if California electors did choose an unqualified candidate then they'd just be wasting their votes.

51 posted on 07/11/2019 5:36:23 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Souled_Out

Exactly. If they can’t hold a constitutional election, hold their electoral votes hostage.


52 posted on 07/11/2019 5:40:35 PM PDT by Magnum44 (My comprehensive terrorism plan: Hunt them down and kill them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Socon-Econ
"So California, and all the states with Democrat legislatures as soon as they assumed power, could decide that their electors would always go to the Democrats, even if their voters wanted to change their minds, effectively precluding us from ever having a Republican president? That’s not what our founding fathers intended, even though the Democrats, developing a sudden yen for language literalism, could argue to the contrary."

Actually, if all the states with Republican legislators tried that strategy we wouldn't have a Democrat President.

But yes, it's perfectly legal. The legislatures get to choose the electors. It so happens they've chosen to effect that by holding an election, but they don't have to. This isn't some hyper-literal reading of the Constitution. It is the process that the document lays out and exactly what the framers intended. Their intent was that the states pick the President, the executive officer of the union of states. The only election of a federal office holder specified in the original Constitution is for your House Representative.

53 posted on 07/11/2019 5:41:26 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Coronal
Here's a choice California..


54 posted on 07/11/2019 5:47:18 PM PDT by Bonemaker (invictus maneo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coronal

California- Native American for’Moronic people who screwed up beautiful state with liberalism.’


55 posted on 07/11/2019 6:17:25 PM PDT by ConservaTeen (WFLA's Jack Harris: Brooklyn is missing their village idiot. Right you are, Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coronal

Invalid request. Just ignore it.


56 posted on 07/11/2019 6:19:36 PM PDT by I want the USA back (The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it. Orwell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hanamizu

It’s a law aimed at a specific person. It fits the constitutional definition of a bill of attainder.

CC


57 posted on 07/11/2019 6:20:13 PM PDT by Celtic Conservative (My cats are more amusing than 200 channels worth of TV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Celtic Conservative

I think a bill of attainder declares a particular person guilty of a crime—a common Parliamentary tactic of recent memory for the Founding Fathers. Of course the law is aimed at President Trump, but his name is nowhere in it. It would apply to anyone. In any case, as near as I can tell, the state of California is under no obligation by the Constitution to place anyone’s name on its Presidential ballot. I say, let them go for it. They think they’re being oh, so clever, but it will come back to bite them. In fact let all of the states controlled by the dems do it. I believe it will increase President Trump’s votes in the rest of the country.

On the other hand, excluding Lincoln from the ballot in 1860 did not end well for the democrat-controlled slave states. Perhaps that should give the democrats pause in 2020.


58 posted on 07/11/2019 6:45:35 PM PDT by hanamizu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Coronal

Blackmail and civil war bull sht.

Of course the deep state courts are filled with traitors willing to help California take over the country


59 posted on 07/11/2019 6:46:56 PM PDT by lavaroise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JMS

Neo-Fascist Kalifornia


60 posted on 07/11/2019 6:54:25 PM PDT by RaginRak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson