Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This State Law Over-Rides Pre-Existing Federal Law
That Says Federal Income Tax Returns Are Confidential To The IRS
So California Doesn't Have Legal Standing To Enact This Law
Can You Show That States Make The Rules On Federal Elections
Because It Would Seem The Federal Gov't Makes The Rules On National Elections
Would That Be Why The Libertarian Party
Is Now Automatically On The Ballots Of All Fifty States
Where Does An Individual State Have The Authority
To Drop The Republican Candidate From Any Election, For Any Reason
We'll See Whose OPINION Wins On Election DayGolfing Gator said:You are wrong, the Fed Govt does not make the rules on National Election.
We'll See Whose OPINION Wins On Election DayGolfing Gator said:You are wrong, the Fed Govt does not make the rules on National Election.
You Haven't Shown Any Of Yours Have Any Basis In Statutory Fact
What I Said About Libertarians Is True
They No Longer Have To Petition To Be On The Ballot Of Any Of The 50 States
A demoncrap with an education is still an idiot.
Nice special affect. But are you aware things look larger than they really are under water? Have a Democrat with an education explain that to you.
This State Law Over-Rides Pre-Existing Federal Law
That Says Federal Income Tax Returns Are Confidential To The IRS
So California Doesn't Have Legal Standing To Enact This Law
They are not overriding it, it will still be confidential until such time as the candidates volunteer to make it not so.
Can You Show That States Make The Rules On Federal Elections
Because It Would Seem The Federal Gov't Makes The Rules On National Elections
Would That Be Why The Libertarian Party
Is Now Automatically On The Ballots Of All Fifty States
Where Does An Individual State Have The Authority
To Drop The Republican Candidate From Any Election, For Any Reason
You are wrong, the Fed Govt does not make the rules on National Election. Evan McMullin only was on 11 ballots in 2016 because every state has different rules.
Why should "major" party candidates get special treatment? Where is that in the Constitution?
We went to Baltimore high schools to find an educated democrat and couldn't find a single kid who could read or write at grade level
Nice special affect. But are you aware things look larger than they really are under water? Have a Democrat with an education explain that to you.
Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California at Berkeley School of Law. He is an expert in constitutional law, federal practice, civil rights and civil liberties, and appellate litigation.The state of California is not altering requirements for the presidency. They are altering the requirements to appear on the ballot of a state primary. Political parties can nominate whoever they choose for president by whatever method they choose.A primary is a state election, not a federal election. There is no constitution violation. States can put whatever requirements they choose on candidates as long it applies to all candidates.Because it puts another requirement above and beyond those listed in the Constitution. 35 years or older, Natural Born Citizen,
That's it.
Do you have any precedent for that?
Most restrictions are based on making sure the ballots are not 500 pages long, with signature requirements.
None have ever been based on disclosure of information beyond the federal requirements.
You would lose in court.
"The Supreme Court has said that states have broad latitude over who is going to be on the ballot so long as they aren’t discriminating based on wealth and ideology."
Since the law requires tax returns be filled by the end of the year and there will be multiple cases filled in federal court, it seems unlikely that this will be resolved in the courts before the end of the year. Some federal judge will issue an injunction against the state which will effectively save the royal ass of the president once again.
Where did you get your quote from? Afraid of letting us know the source you dime store hack?
Op-Ed: California's new law requiring presidential candidates to disclose tax returns is constitutional
This State Law Over-Rides Pre-Existing Federal Law
That Says Federal Income Tax Returns Are Confidential To The IRS
So California Doesn't Have Legal Standing To Enact This Law
They are not overriding it, it will still be confidential until such time as the candidates volunteer to make it not so.
Can You Show That States Make The Rules On Federal Elections
Because It Would Seem The Federal Gov't Makes The Rules On National Elections
Would That Be Why The Libertarian Party
Is Now Automatically On The Ballots Of All Fifty States
Where Does An Individual State Have The Authority
To Drop The Republican Candidate From Any Election, For Any Reason
You are wrong, the Fed Govt does not make the rules on National Election. Evan McMullin only was on 11 ballots in 2016 because every state has different rules.
Why should "major" party candidates get special treatment? Where is that in the Constitution?
The Constitution sets the rule for Presidential elections.
End of the story
and that is what is going to happen next. the problem with actions like this is while they may seem like a good sneaky move to get at someone, you're simply opening up the door to allowing other rules you may not like to be on the ballot.Democrats be like... if you don't streak down 5th ave, you can't be on the ballot
and that is what is going to happen next. the problem with actions like this is while they may seem like a good sneaky move to get at someone, you're simply opening up the door to allowing other rules you may not like to be on the ballot.Democrats be like... if you don't streak down 5th ave, you can't be on the ballot
what if texas says you must be born in a southern state to be on their ballot? what if florida says you must have $10,000,000 in a florida bank account to be on their ballot? what if NY says you must open up the books on any charity you fund for an independent investigation to be on the ballot?
so sure - giggle away but this is exactly the bite you in the ass move the left loves to do. like the biden rule where you can't select a SCOTUS in your lame duck year. how'd that turn out?
so while all these people are making rules to favor ONE SIDE, great. but they're not the only side that can do that and the other side will follow suit and wheee - we can continue to burn Rome down.
like i said - it may work THIS ONE TIME, but i have to believe if trump had tax issues the IRS would nail him to the wall. i messed up on my investment income 2 years in a row when i started doing my own taxes and it was costly. but it was my fault. they find it and they miss nothing.and that is what is going to happen next. the problem with actions like this is while they may seem like a good sneaky move to get at someone, you're simply opening up the door to allowing other rules you may not like to be on the ballot.Democrats be like... if you don't streak down 5th ave, you can't be on the ballot
what if texas says you must be born in a southern state to be on their ballot? what if florida says you must have $10,000,000 in a florida bank account to be on their ballot? what if NY says you must open up the books on any charity you fund for an independent investigation to be on the ballot?
so sure - giggle away but this is exactly the bite you in the ass move the left loves to do. like the biden rule where you can't select a SCOTUS in your lame duck year. how'd that turn out?
so while all these people are making rules to favor ONE SIDE, great. but they're not the only side that can do that and the other side will follow suit and wheee - we can continue to burn Rome down.
Or my personal favorite, Dems removing the Filibuster for lower judicial appointments, and then screaming bloody murder when Republicans removed it for the SC. The Dems broke the dam, the republicans just widened the breach.
like i said - it may work THIS ONE TIME, but i have to believe if trump had tax issues the IRS would nail him to the wall. i messed up on my investment income 2 years in a row when i started doing my own taxes and it was costly. but it was my fault. they find it and they miss nothing.and that is what is going to happen next. the problem with actions like this is while they may seem like a good sneaky move to get at someone, you're simply opening up the door to allowing other rules you may not like to be on the ballot.Democrats be like... if you don't streak down 5th ave, you can't be on the ballot
what if texas says you must be born in a southern state to be on their ballot? what if florida says you must have $10,000,000 in a florida bank account to be on their ballot? what if NY says you must open up the books on any charity you fund for an independent investigation to be on the ballot?
so sure - giggle away but this is exactly the bite you in the ass move the left loves to do. like the biden rule where you can't select a SCOTUS in your lame duck year. how'd that turn out?
so while all these people are making rules to favor ONE SIDE, great. but they're not the only side that can do that and the other side will follow suit and wheee - we can continue to burn Rome down.
Or my personal favorite, Dems removing the Filibuster for lower judicial appointments, and then screaming bloody murder when Republicans removed it for the SC. The Dems broke the dam, the republicans just widened the breach.
all the taxes thing is for is a PR stunt to give them something to bitch about. since trump either gives them something to bitch about or they simply make something up on a daily basis, the best the taxes would provide is comic relief for a week or so and then be a non-issue.
but suddenly, the states now have the power to get "cute" with a national election. their own arrogance and ignorance shows off their lack of understanding where that road will go.
if california can make rules, so can texas and every other state out there.
we continue to de-evolve.
and that's what the left wants. emotional ammo cause they just don't have any factual ammo.like i said - it may work THIS ONE TIME, but i have to believe if trump had tax issues the IRS would nail him to the wall. i messed up on my investment income 2 years in a row when i started doing my own taxes and it was costly. but it was my fault. they find it and they miss nothing.and that is what is going to happen next. the problem with actions like this is while they may seem like a good sneaky move to get at someone, you're simply opening up the door to allowing other rules you may not like to be on the ballot.Democrats be like... if you don't streak down 5th ave, you can't be on the ballot
what if texas says you must be born in a southern state to be on their ballot? what if florida says you must have $10,000,000 in a florida bank account to be on their ballot? what if NY says you must open up the books on any charity you fund for an independent investigation to be on the ballot?
so sure - giggle away but this is exactly the bite you in the ass move the left loves to do. like the biden rule where you can't select a SCOTUS in your lame duck year. how'd that turn out?
so while all these people are making rules to favor ONE SIDE, great. but they're not the only side that can do that and the other side will follow suit and wheee - we can continue to burn Rome down.
Or my personal favorite, Dems removing the Filibuster for lower judicial appointments, and then screaming bloody murder when Republicans removed it for the SC. The Dems broke the dam, the republicans just widened the breach.
all the taxes thing is for is a PR stunt to give them something to bitch about. since trump either gives them something to bitch about or they simply make something up on a daily basis, the best the taxes would provide is comic relief for a week or so and then be a non-issue.
but suddenly, the states now have the power to get "cute" with a national election. their own arrogance and ignorance shows off their lack of understanding where that road will go.
if california can make rules, so can texas and every other state out there.
we continue to de-evolve.
What Trump has on his returns is probably accounting tricks that look terrible optically, but are 100% legal, and are used by anyone with as much money as he has.
US citizens pay so the rest of the world can have cheap drugs? That's your preferred method?Price controls are proven to be a really bad idea. We have a long history of price control policies going back to the 1930s. Every one of them ended in disaster. The fact that people still propose price controls demonstrates a horrible failure of our education system and a general ignorance of basic economics.See, what you don’t get is, 1st world countries in Europe have great socialist healthcare systems and there’s no critical shortage of doctors. You act as though our system is the best and when really it is the worst among developed nations. And I’ll tell you why it is worst and the most expensive: it’s a ridiculous for-profit system. People pay for prescription drugs at sky rocket rates. The same drugs in other countries cost a fraction of the same price. That shit is deliberate. Lobbyists made it illegal for Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices.It can get funded because he would close loopholes and deductions to make it work. Either way, the effective tax rate is the 50’s was higher and the world didn’t collapse did it?
Why would the doctors quit? Why would the hospitals close? Based on what? You also forget that we pay per capita more than any nation in the world on earth on healthcare. A socialized system would save us money.
I just explained why hospitals would close and doctors would quit. No business can operate at a loss or even break even for that matter. Do you think an American wants to spend 8 years of their life racking up hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans to become a physician only to work until 50 years old before it's paid off?
There is only one way to approach the healthcare problem, and that is analyze why it's so expensive in the first place. I guarantee you government is mostly responsible for that. After we greatly reduce the cost for healthcare, then let's figure out a way to pay for it. But this approach of paying for something that's out of control cost-wise is pure stupidity. That's why Commie Care is such a failure.
Now as to the tax rate. Yes, people paid higher taxes, but there were not many places left to go. Overseas travel was dangerous and expensive. Communications were antiquated and long distance was expensive, unreliable and the sound quality was miserable.
Today a business owner can pack up and move out of the country with no problem. He can keep track of his investments up to the minute on his or her cell phone. He can have corporate meetings on Skype or other means of virtual gatherings. With radar and satellites, overseas travel has never been safer.
I don’t understand what point you’re making here. Regardless of the limitations at the time, rich people paid more in effective taxes and the middle class thrived.
I was not alive in the 50's, I was born in 1960, and let me tell you, nobody was thriving back then.
There is no critical shortage of doctors in socialized healthcare? Why don't you visit one country north where people wait forever to have serious medical issues addressed?
Being a truck driver in Cleveland, I often rub elbows with Canadian drivers. While waiting to get loaded or unloaded, we often talk.
I try to bring up the healthcare situation here and there. The younger drivers tell me they love their system. The older drivers tell me to keep what we have, or we will be sorry if in any way duplicate their system.
Show me one country where you think the healthcare system is perfect, and I'll provide several articles saying it's not so, because every country in the world has healthcare issues including the US. Ours may be different in the way of problems, but don't kid yourself thinking they don't have problems as well.
So you want government to control prescription prices? Great idea.
Hillary's Vaccine Shortage
Only competition and efforts to increase the supply can control prices. Government regulation is a big log jam on supply.
.
What people don't understand is we are the innovator of many drugs in 70'sthe world. But it's a tedious task as well.
It takes anywhere form 5 to 10 years for a new drug to hit the American market thanks to the FDA and trial lawyers. When a company creates a new drug, it has to undergo all kinds of government testing. It's also hundreds of thousands pieces of paperwork that goes along with it.
But after (let's say) you spent the hundreds of millions of dollars for all this government testing. You invested 7 years of combatting red tape, and now the FDA simply says "No thanks, we will not approve it!" What do you do?
What you do is increase the price of the drugs you already have on the market. That's the problem.
But oh! other countries pay less for drugs than we do!!!! This is true, but other countries also never had to do the testing that our companies have to. So if the drug makes it to our market, they can charge much cheaper prices in other countries where the cost to market the drug is almost nothing because we paid for all the mandated research.
Then there is the liability issue no other country has. Somebody here dies because of a drug. The family can sue them right out of business. So the manufacture of the drugs needs to include a liability cost because somebody somewhere in the US is going to sue them, and we have to pay for that as well.
What kind of idiot thinks this is constitutional?
No, states cannot pass a law that goes against the Constitution.This will be interesting. Obviously a state can pass such a law. I think it's fair to want a candidate to be transparent. I'm not sure the courts will allow it.
Lol
Nice special affect. But are you aware things look larger than they really are under water? Have a Democrat with an education explain that to you.
Progressives have no common sense… you prove it every day
California did not change the constitutional requirements for being president nor did they add any candidate requirements for listing on the ballot of the presidential general election.California is not forcing Trump to release his tax return. It's his choice.Trump is a known liar. I want to see what he sent to the IRS.
Want in one hand and shit in the other and see which fills up the fastest. Federal law says tax returns are confidential and release without the taxpayers consent is a felony. Neither you or CA has the authority to force a taxpayer to release their returns.
.
And so if every state is allowed to add their own requirements of the Constitution, then the Republican can't run in those states and he's not deprived of the constitutional right to run for President?
They added requirements for all presidential and state gubernatorial candidates seeking to be listed on state primary ballots. The state does nothing with presidential primary results accept publish them. It is up to the political parties to use those as they sees fit.
What happens in California is not going have any effect on the outcome of the presidential race. Trump people have written off California just as they did in 2016.
That is not the point. The point is what they are doing is totally unconstitutional. If Trump allows them to get away with this because it's meaningless, then what's next?
What's next is that if CA gets away with it, some commie in a swing state might do the same. You have to stop anti-Americans in their track at the first sign of trouble, or like any other child, they will advance to the next step.
Teddy Kennedy never released his tax returns when he challenged Jimmy Carter in the 1980 Dem primary.
How about a different standard? If you destroy evidence that's under a Congressional subpoena, you don't get to be on the ballot. Hillary would have been ineligible under this rule.
No, states cannot pass a law that goes against the Constitution.This will be interesting. Obviously a state can pass such a law. I think it's fair to want a candidate to be transparent. I'm not sure the courts will allow it.
This is stupid in it's face. No serious person that's read the Constitution believes this will pass muster.
