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

Skip to comments.

Can New Jersey Democrats Bulldoze President Trump?
American Thinker.com ^ | March 10, 2020 | Eileen F. Toplansky

Posted on 03/10/2020 7:58:34 AM PDT by Kaslin

How quaint that leftists aka Democrats sound the alarm on voting rights for illegals but display nothing but dictatorial instincts when they want to squash the rights of conservative voters.

New Jersey Democrats are reviving an effort to force President Donald Trump to release his tax returns or be denied a spot on the state's 2020 ballot. Thus, "[t]he New Jersey state Senate approved a bill which the Legislature passed once before, in 2017, but which then-Gov. Chris Christie blocked by issuing a scathing veto -- that would prohibit candidates for president and vice president from appearing on the ballot unless they make their tax returns public."

In fact, "[s]imilar legislation has been introduced in at least 30 states but never enacted, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, meaning New Jersey would be the first to impose such a disclosure requirement if its measure is also approved by the Assembly and signed by Gov. Phil Murphy, a Democrat."

Consequently, in the now totalitarian state of New Jersey where Democratic Gov. Murphy appears to be vying with Democratic California Governor Gavin Newsom as to who can be autocrat of the year, a raw grab for power is being enacted that would prohibit "Electoral College electors from voting for Presidential or Vice Presidential candidates who fail to file income tax returns."

Translated -- the Democrats are attempting to keep President Trump off the New Jersey ballot by insisting that the IRS wield its massive power and disclose what is supposed to be private information.

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


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 03/10/2020 7:58:34 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

“[t]he New Jersey state Senate approved a bill which ... would prohibit candidates for president and vice president from appearing on the ballot unless they make their tax returns public.”

Tax returns are private matters.
Bills of attainder (which this practically is, in attempt to drive Trump off ballot) are illegal.
Beware unintended consequences.


2 posted on 03/10/2020 8:09:41 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (* - Interesting how those so interested in workERS are so disinterested in workING.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Did not realize the support the Prez had as evident in his Wildwood NJ rally.


3 posted on 03/10/2020 8:12:03 AM PDT by duckman ( Not tired of winning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

And this jackass Phail Murphy wonders why the environmental impact statement for his beloved Gateway Tunnel project is never going to be approved by the U.S. Department of Transportation.


4 posted on 03/10/2020 8:13:24 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("Oh, but it's hard to live by the rules; I never could and still never do.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
Tax returns are private matters. Bills of attainder (which this is, formulated as an attempt to drive Trump off the ballot) are illegal.

Excellent point......

A bill of attainder (also known as a bill of penalties) is an official legislative act
declaring a person guilty of some crime and punishing them......without benefit of judge or jury.

It is something done in flea-bitten Third Worlds by tin pot dictators

............completely unacceptable in a republic.......

5 posted on 03/10/2020 8:20:47 AM PDT by Liz (Our side has 8 trillion bullets; the other side doesn't know which bathroom to use.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Did not a Federal Court slap this down in California?


6 posted on 03/10/2020 8:20:50 AM PDT by C19fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Just another example of where the Left wants to restrict your freedom...in this instance, freedom of choice. Why? Because Trump’s way of doing things (indeed...he gets things done, unlike the Democrats) is out of sync with their goals. This always their response:

Don’t like what you see on TV?
Conservative: change the channel
Liberal: Pass a law that makes that show illegal

Don’t want to bake a wedding cake for gays on religious grounds?
Conservative: find a baker who will.
Liberal: Pass a law that makes cake-baking a form of
discrimination

Don’t think 32oz sodas are good for you?
Conservative: don’t buy them
Liberal: Pass a law that makes it illegal to sell them

Don’t think salt is good for you?
Conservative: don’t use it
Liberal: Pass a law that makes it illegal to have salt
shakers on the table.

Democrats: If you have a good idea, you don’t need to pass a law to get people to go along with it. It’s only when people disagree with you that you must use force on them.


7 posted on 03/10/2020 8:25:20 AM PDT by econjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Surely a case destined for SCOTUS, which would surely stay the move until well after this election.


8 posted on 03/10/2020 8:30:52 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog (Patrick Henry would have been an anti-vaxxer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

“Did not a Federal Court slap this down in California?”

it was the CA supreme court that slapped it down, so has not been adjudicated nationally, though i suppose that case can be referenced in a Federal judgement, should such a thing actually happen ...


9 posted on 03/10/2020 9:35:21 AM PDT by catnipman (Cat Nipman: Vote Republican in 2012 and only be called racist one more time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Since the voters vote for electors, shouldn't the law force electors to disclose their tax forms?

Trump had 1.6 million votes in New Jersey in 2016. He lost by half a million votes. It's very unlikely that he would win New Jersey in 2020 but denying him any popular votes in New Jersey could allow the 'Rat candidate to get a plurality of the popular vote nationally (like Hillary did in 2016).

Probably New Jersey Democrats would be fine with not letting Trump's name be on the ballot, but it may not make a good impression with independent voters. But there is precedent--in 1860 something like 10 states did not have the Republican ticket on the ballot. It was worse in 1864--in the 11 Confederate States, nobody voted for Lincoln.

10 posted on 03/10/2020 11:03:46 AM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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