no tax return, no place on ballot

[JusticeHammer]

No, what they are saying is HE CAN'T run for President in their state. Again, totally unconstitutional.

No, they are saying he cannot be on their ballot. Right now Cali has a list of requirements to be on their ballot, which is why there is not 100 people on it running for POTUS each election. Are all of those requirements unconstitutional?

Yes, go ahead. Give me a new requirement that any state has in force beyond the constitution that would prevent a person running for President.

Libtards don't care about the Constitution.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

No, the state cannot pass such a law. The requirements to be a President of the United States are outlined in the US Constitution. No state can change that by adding on to it without a constitutional amendment.

Democrats still plugging up our courts with childish bullshit that will never work.

They did not change the requirements to be a President of the United States, they added a rule to be on their ballot.

A rule that changes the constitutionally-mandated requirements for president. The requirements cannot be changed, subtracted or added to short of an amendment.

Unconstitutional.

Interpreting the high court's ruling six years later, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declared a California law unconstitutional for "creating an absolute bar to candidates, who otherwise meet the requirements of the Qualifications Clause."

Many expect judges would apply the same logic for the presidency. But courts have also upheld several so-called "ballot access" rules in primary elections, finding that states have a "right to regulate elections by imposing reasonable requirements on candidates."

Indeed. Keeps impecunious homeless crackheads from running for office.

 

[Siete]

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.

No, the state cannot pass such a law. The requirements to be a President of the United States are outlined in the US Constitution. No state can change that by adding on to it without a constitutional amendment.



Democrats still plugging up our courts with childish bullshit that will never work.

They did not change the requirements to be a President of the United States, they added a rule to be on their ballot.

A rule that changes the constitutionally-mandated requirements for president. The requirements cannot be changed, subtracted or added to short of an amendment.

Unconstitutional.

No, what they are saying is HE CAN'T run for President in their state. Again, totally unconstitutional.

No, they are saying he cannot be on their ballot. Right now Cali has a list of requirements to be on their ballot, which is why there is not 100 people on it running for POTUS each election. Are all of those requirements unconstitutional?

Yes, go ahead. Give me a new requirement that any state has in force beyond the constitution that would prevent a person running for President.

I just did gomer ...... post #36

 

[whitehall]

New York changes the law to attack the President and California changes the freaking election law to keep citizens from being able to vote for the candidate they like. Imagine what it would be like if liberals got their slimy claws on the Constitution?

 

[JusticeHammer]

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.

does ignoring a congressional subpoena count too ?

If the congressional subpoena is from a bunch of clowns like nadler, no.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

sounds good to me -

Trump’s tax returns required under new California election law

Unconstitutional.

what part of the Constitution is it violating?

Article II, Section 1.

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Those are the requirements. Arbitrary requirements cannot be added short of an amendment.

So, you are saying that the signature requirements that every state has to be on their ballot are unconstitutional? I do not think the courts agree with you.

 

[JusticeHammer]

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.

Democrats complain about rigging elections while they try to rig the election right out in front of everyone.

You're an idiot.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

No, what they are saying is HE CAN'T run for President in their state. Again, totally unconstitutional.

No, they are saying he cannot be on their ballot. Right now Cali has a list of requirements to be on their ballot, which is why there is not 100 people on it running for POTUS each election. Are all of those requirements unconstitutional?

Yes, go ahead. Give me a new requirement that any state has in force beyond the constitution that would prevent a person running for President.

Every state has signature requirements or party nomination requirements to be on their ballot. Right now if you went to your state and said "put me on the ballot, I am running for POTUS" they would give you a list of requirements to be on their ballot

 

[Siete]

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.

Democrats complain about rigging elections while they try to rig the election right out in front of everyone.

You're an idiot.

typical RW response after someone hands them their ass -

yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

sounds good to me -

Trump’s tax returns required under new California election law

Unconstitutional.

what part of the Constitution is it violating?

Article II, Section 1.

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Those are the requirements. Arbitrary requirements cannot be added short of an amendment.

So, you are saying that the signature requirements that every state has to be on their ballot are unconstitutional? I do not think the courts agree with you.

No, not at all. Surely you know better than that.

Or, maybe not.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

sounds good to me -

Trump’s tax returns required under new California election law

Unconstitutional.

what part of the Constitution is it violating?

Article II, Section 1.

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Those are the requirements. Arbitrary requirements cannot be added short of an amendment.

So, you are saying that the signature requirements that every state has to be on their ballot are unconstitutional? I do not think the courts agree with you.

No, not at all. Surely you know better than that.

Or, maybe not.

Ok, so it seems you think that signature requirements that every state has to be on their ballot are not unconstitutional. yet they are a requirement that is not in the Constitution.

How are they any different than what Cali is attempting to do?

 

[TheGreatSatan]

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.

Democrats complain about rigging elections while they try to rig the election right out in front of everyone.

You're an idiot.

typical RW response after someone hands them their ass -

yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

He/she/LGBTQ*x doubled down on his/her/LGBTQ*x classy post... nice...

 

[Ricky LIbtardo]

sounds good to me -

Trump’s tax returns required under new California election law

You idiots crack me up. The Supreme Court has already ruled on these stupid requirements and this too will be shoved up your asses.

"In 1994, the Supreme Court ruled that states — in this case, Arkansas — could not add on their own qualifications for congressional candidates."

 

[Harpy Eagle]

sounds good to me -

Trump’s tax returns required under new California election law

You idiots crack me up. The Supreme Court has already ruled on these stupid requirements and this too will be shoved up your asses.

"In 1994, the Supreme Court ruled that states — in this case, Arkansas — could not add on their own qualifications for congressional candidates."

Yet every state in the Union has signature requirements to be on their ballot..

 

[Flash]

California should have insisted the Muslim Negro produce his college transcripts before being put on the ballot in 2008 and 2012. The transcripts would have shown that the asshole enrolled as a foreign student and was ineligible to be President. That and probably the fact that the dumb sonofabitch was passed because of affirmative action and not real grades.

 

[Siete]

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.

Democrats complain about rigging elections while they try to rig the election right out in front of everyone.

You're an idiot.

typical RW response after someone hands them their ass -

yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

He/she/LGBTQ*x doubled down on his/her/LGBTQ*x classy post... nice...

since you're TOO STUPID TO COMMENT ON THE THREAD SUBJECT

GROW UP.

 

[TheGreatSatan]

Democrats complain about rigging elections while they try to rig the election right out in front of everyone.

You're an idiot.

typical RW response after someone hands them their ass -

yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

He/she/LGBTQ*x doubled down on his/her/LGBTQ*x classy post... nice...

since you're TOO STUPID TO COMMENT ON THE THREAD SUBJECT

GROW UP.

If you read the thread, you will see it is you who is too stupid to comment on the thead.

 

[Ricky LIbtardo]

sounds good to me -

Trump’s tax returns required under new California election law

You idiots crack me up. The Supreme Court has already ruled on these stupid requirements and this too will be shoved up your asses.

"In 1994, the Supreme Court ruled that states — in this case, Arkansas — could not add on their own qualifications for congressional candidates."

Yet every state in the Union has signature requirements to be on their ballot..

Even the libtarded 9th circuit shot this shit down and here you are making a fool of yourself again today. Don't you ever get tired of being Libtarded?

"Interpreting the high court's ruling six years later, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declared a California law unconstitutional for "creating an absolute bar to candidates, who otherwise meet the requirements of the Qualifications Clause."

 

[Siete]

sounds good to me -

Trump’s tax returns required under new California election law

You idiots crack me up. The Supreme Court has already ruled on these stupid requirements and this too will be shoved up your asses.

"In 1994, the Supreme Court ruled that states — in this case, Arkansas — could not add on their own qualifications for congressional candidates."

Yet every state in the Union has signature requirements to be on their ballot..

Even the libtarded 9th circuit shot this shit down and here you are making a fool of yourself again today. Don't you ever get tired of being Libtarded?

"Interpreting the high court's ruling six years later, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declared a California law unconstitutional for "creating an absolute bar to candidates, who otherwise meet the requirements of the Qualifications Clause."

But courts have also upheld several so-called "ballot access" rules in primary elections, finding that states have a "right to regulate elections by imposing reasonable requirements on candidates.

 

[BluesLegend]

sounds good to me -

Trump’s tax returns required under new California election law

Trump doesn't need to win California so I popped your unconstitutional election rigging balloon.