Skip to comments.
Federal judge blocks California law to force disclosure of Trump’s tax returns
LA Times ^
| Sept. 19, 2019
| John Myers
Posted on 09/19/2019 2:06:00 PM PDT by Innovative
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-30 last
To: Buckeye McFrog
Good observation, FRiend. How many people even know what a bill of attainder is?
To: backwoods-engineer
"California is in a state of insurrection against the Constitution."
This new requirement to be President and their Sanctuary Laws are absolutely contrary to the Constitution. Pres. Trump is fighting back. Remember back when AZ law tried to enforce border security and was shot down by the USSC? They said it wasn't a State's right to enforce such, it was a Fedgov obligation. I agreed with the finding, even though being a States' Rights advocate. I follow the Constitution first!
22
posted on
09/20/2019 3:39:32 PM PDT
by
A Navy Vet
(I'm not Islamophobic - I'm Islamonauseous. Also LGBTQxyz nauseous.)
To: bigbob
So he must be an Uncle Tom, because GWB was a racist, and so was the Senate that confirmed him./s
23
posted on
09/21/2019 4:41:25 PM PDT
by
Eleutheria5
(If you are not prepared to use force to defend civilization, then be prepared to accept barbarism.)
To: flamberge
And voter ID is of course racist./s
24
posted on
09/21/2019 4:43:28 PM PDT
by
Eleutheria5
(If you are not prepared to use force to defend civilization, then be prepared to accept barbarism.)
To: A Navy Vet
And now they’re claiming states’ rights to defy federal law! Where are the judges on that?
25
posted on
09/21/2019 4:44:42 PM PDT
by
Eleutheria5
(If you are not prepared to use force to defend civilization, then be prepared to accept barbarism.)
To: Innovative
A federal judge ordered a temporary injunction Thursday against Californias first-in-the-nation law requiring candidates to disclose their tax returns for a spot on the presidential primary ballot, an early victory for President Trump but a decision that will undoubtedly be appealed by state officials.
If we got rid of this crap, this wouldn't be an issue. Why is the State in any way controlling, or involved with, a primary? They should only be concerned with the general elections - any and all primaries should be handled exclusively by the parties the primary is for. Not only will this get the State/Cities out of interfering with the process, it'll save a lot of $$ for the municipalities/counties running elections. And, it just makes plain sense.
To: Eleutheria5
"And now theyre claiming states rights to defy federal law!"
IIRC without reading my pocket Constitution, the individual States DO have the right to their ballot and electoral process. So it's a mixed bag.
27
posted on
09/22/2019 12:34:44 PM PDT
by
A Navy Vet
(I'm not Islamophobic - I'm Islamonauseous. Also LGBTQxyz nauseous.)
To: A Navy Vet
But immigration is exclusively a federal matter, as stated in that Nevada case, and California is deliberately defying the federal government and laws to shelter illegal invaders. On electoral and ballots, you’re correct, since the presidential election is really the local election of electors in each state to the electoral college.
28
posted on
09/22/2019 12:49:12 PM PDT
by
Eleutheria5
(If you are not prepared to use force to defend civilization, then be prepared to accept barbarism.)
To: A Navy Vet
Every governor, every elected state official, every appointed law officer and public servant at the state level swears or affirms that they will uphold their state constitution and laws duly enacted AND the federal constitution and laws duly enacted.
The USSC issued a crappy ruling in the Arizona case, in that, it is a sworn duty of all law officers and state officials to enforce the law of this country. Last I read or heard, immigration laws are duly enacted and enforceable.
IMHO, both you and the SC are wrong.
29
posted on
09/24/2019 9:10:03 AM PDT
by
Colonelbuzzsaw
(USAF AIR BATTLE MANAGER, retired, Trump supporter, Hurricane Michael survivor)
To: Colonelbuzzsaw
" The USSC issued a crappy ruling in the Arizona case, in that, it is a sworn duty of all law officers and state officials to enforce the law of this country. Last I read or heard, immigration laws are duly enacted and enforceable. IMHO, both you and the SC are wrong."
That's why I said earlier it's a mixed bag on the AZ ruling.
30
posted on
09/25/2019 11:30:49 AM PDT
by
A Navy Vet
(I'm not Islamophobic - I'm Islamonauseous. Also LGBTQxyz nauseous.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-30 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson