Posted on 06/21/2018 6:05:35 PM PDT by yesthatjallen
excuse me but Trump DID file his tax returns , if he didn’t he would be breaking the law. So are they saying he has to show them to the public to be on the ballot? Big difference that compared to not filing taxes.
There are some beautiful towns in Rhode Island—Barrington,Bristol,Tiverton,and Little Compton,to name a few.
.
POLITICS AT ITS WORST! They are depriving the citizns of RI from heaving their votes possibly count. Also, since IRS filed tax returns cannot be disclosed; who are they to try and countermand Federal Law? This is headed to court, 1st and 4th and 5th Amendment stuff I believe.
I don’t think any of the first several posters have read the Constitution. This isn’t a ‘Federal election’, it’s a state election that is run by the RI Legislature. If they wanted to pass a law saying all their electors vote for a particular person, they can. Federally, the presidential election means nothing. On a state level, 48 states require their electors to follow the popular vote. Only Maine and NE are proportional. BUT, simple legislation in any state can change how they choose their electors, and popular vote is only an option. It’s not even required, much less regulated by the FedGov, outside of the few requirements on allowing votes like women’s suffrage or voting age.
EFF Rhode Island where they breathe! Who needs ‘em? They always vote Demopuke anyway. Screw the mob-infested retard losers.
Sounds like an extra Constitutional requirement.
If it is signed by the governor it will be challenged in court.
Yea, because folks are going to walk into a presidential election and not WRITE IN Trump because the state doesn’t have him on the ballot...
Stupid..... More tokenism
There are four electors for each political party—so it would be 4 times the number of parties. Besides the two major parties there are usually several other parties listed like the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, and others.
>> Easily struck down in the Federal courts <<
Don’t think so. The U. S. Constitution says that each state’s LEGISLATURE shall decide how the state’s electoral votes are to be cast. The wording doesn’t even give the states’ governors and courts a say-so, as Scalia pointed out during litigation on the 2000 Florida recount.
This provision means for example that any state’s legislature could decide (1) that there shall be no popular vote for POTUS in the state and (2) that the state’s electoral votes shall be allocated to any natural-born U.S. citizen over age 35 whom the legislature might designate.
Of course, it ain’t gonna happen exactly that way. But on the other hand, I think it’s almost certain that a carefully crafted tax-return provision could pass constitutional muster.
>> How would the proposed legislation be a bill of attainder? <<
It wouldn’t be. Not even close. You can look it up.
>> You elect electors who cast ballots for president so technically he is not who you are electing <<
Exactly correct.
The Constitution vests the full power of selecting electors exclusively in the LEGISLATURES of the states.
So there is probably no constraint on what considerations the legislatures may impose, other than the 14th and 15th Amendments’ strictures against racial discrimination, and probably the 19th Amendment’s giving women participation in the electoral process.
>> I don’t think any of the first several posters have read the Constitution <<
Not just the “first several” but almost all posters herein.
In fact, it’s hard to recall ever seeing so many ill-informed comments about a constitutional matter anywhere on the Internet.
It isn’t.
In my OP I asked the person how they figured we were talking about a bill of attainder. I got back an incorrectly reasoned response. I looked at the majority of responses and figured it was going to take more than I was willing to expend.
I just put it in with the misunderstood free speech issue and let it roll.
A lot of people nowadays seem to confuse voting with ‘Republic’. It’s not. Any state could fget rid of it’s presidential election any time it wanted, and it would be perfectly Constitutional.
It will be interesting to see how the legal challenge works out. States do decide how candidates qualify for placement on the ballot, but something this ridiculous might be hard for the courts to uphold.
>> I got back an incorrectly reasoned response <<
Not the least bit unusual around here these days.
So I simply lean back and enjoy the passing parade.
Thanks yesthatjallen.
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.