Posted on 04/13/2019 8:46:31 AM PDT by rktman
Donald Trump will have to release five years of tax returns if he wants appear on the Illinois 2020 presidential ballot, the state’s senate has ruled.
The bill, which still requires approval by the Prairie State’s House of Representatives, comes amid a growing row in Washington over Mr Trump’s unprecedented refusal to make publicly available his income tax returns.
The US Treasury ignored a congressional deadline to release the documents earlier this week. Treasury secretary Steve Mnuchin claimed the request by the House ways and means committee was “politically motivated”.
Mr Trump himself has claimed that he cannot release his tax returns because they are under audit, although technically there is nothing preventing him from doing so.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Hell is waiting on these democrats.... there is a corner for special people.
They will get Trumps tax return when the English people finally get the BRexit they voted for. Until then we are at war.
True. But we don't care anymore. Refuse to seat the delegation from Illinois if they go through with this.
California has gimmicked their elections so that Republicans cannot even get on the ballot. Illinois is going down that same path. So is New Jersey.
It is pointless to debate the constitutionality or legitimacy or fairness or even sanity of such laws. We have only Pretense-of-law in Democrat-controlled States. This sort of thing can be settled ultimately by the factions that control the police and army.
Time and demographics are not favorable to us.
American fascism reveals itself
Where is a Republican legislature that says illegal supporters and baby killers are not allowed on the ballot?
BTW, if the President is not allowed on the ballot, organize a write-in campaign. Write in President Trump’s name for every single office, very very very slowly.
Not the point that he can’t win these states. It is a set-up to scream that they won the popular vote and electoral vote doesn’t matter.
Would seem then they can claim anyone over 70 years old won’t be on their ballot...Or anyone who owns an airline sized personal jet...Or anyone who is named Trump...Or anyone who is a Republican...
I thought the Constitution gave the requirements for Presidential qualifications...Guess not...
so liberals have been screaming about republicans ‘Suppressing the vote” for decades now, with absolutely zero proof that they did- and here we have a blatant attempt by the left to suppress the vote in Illinois by not allowing people in the state to vote for trump because he won’t be on the ballot?
Stupid showboating.
The Constitution sets out the requirements for a President. It preempts the ability of the states to add additional requirements.
"Since the Constitution forbids Congress and state legislators from being electors,..."
State legislators are not forbidden from being named Electors, only Federal Legislators and employees are so restricted.
dvwjr
They never think through the next step. I’ll bet they never thought that Harry Reid change to judges would come back to bite them or having Obamacare riddled with all the “Secretary shall” statements. They believe the natural state of being is to have democrats in power. They never assume they could lose. That’s what makes them so angry about Trump winning. He upset the natural order of their world.
Where’s that in Article II? Oh yeah, obamy did away with the US Constitution.
How about Trump telling Illinois: ‘F you and you’ll not get any federal aid.’ Turnabout is fair play...
Same thing we dealt with in my career with govt auditors always on hand to ensure contractual requirements were met.
_______________
And the IL Governor, scion of the Pritzker conglomerate, also knows this, as the family law firm is also under constant audit.
I know people in the family, as well as others who worked there in the past. There are clerical workers who do nothing but post income streams to the various recipients AND to the auditors. (But the catered lunches are said to be fabulous)
Congress will not accept Electors who have violated federal law by setting an illegal condition for appearing on the ballot...this will go to court
As for going to court. State legislatures can award their electoral votes any way they wish. They have, for some time—like pretty much always—awarded their electoral votes to the person who won the Presidential election in their state, but the Constitution doesn’t require them to. The Constitution doesn’t require a Presidential election, except for the December election by the states’ Electors.
Refuse to seat the delegation from Illinois if they go through with this.
Each house can choose to accept the results from each state or reject them. A Democratic-controlled House is not going to throw out the votes that support a Democrat candidate. A Republican-controlled House can’t throw out disputed votes that support the Democrat because of charges of racism, sexism, homophobia, islamophobia, transphobia, etc etc.
As you point out, Republicans cannot get on the ballot for important elections in California, like the last two Senate elections. They don’t even allow write-in ballots. One would think that they wouldn’t be so blatant when they achieve power, but look at what they’re doing in regards to abortion and gun rights. They just don’t care what a large portion of America thinks. They may come to care, but right now they don’t.
If they do not hold all candidates that then all their votes should be annulled.
Doesn’t the Constitution forbid both bills of Attainder and ex post facto laws?
5.56mm
You are certainly correct about how things are supposed to work. They aren't working anymore.
Disallow the electoral votes from Illinois, and refuse to seat their elected representatives in the House and Senate. Apply the same "rules" to California and New Jersey. That is hardball.
If the Democrats are going to change the "laws" to suit themselves, we might as well do the same. There is no point in playing by their rules anymore.
They will never care and cannot be intimidated. Only their replacement can (maybe) change anything.
It would be nice if that replacement could be done by honest elections.
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.