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.
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.
/—-/ And if Red States ban pro abortion candidates from the ballot you’ll be cool with that, right?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.
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."
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.
Hey, petunia. Eat this and have a nice day.
"The California law applies only to the primary, not the general election, and that may become a key legal distinction. If Mr. Trump doesn’t appear on the California primary ballot but he wins the Republican nomination, his name would still be on the state’s general-election ballot in November 2020."
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. There are already rules to get on any state ballot. The question will be is this any different from those, since those are all allowed by the courts.
Wrong. They are adding a requirement to run for President. If the founders wanted states to make their own requirements, they would have stated so in the Constitution. The state of Commie Fornia decided to change the requirements which is unconstitutional, and they know it.
/—-/ And if Red States ban pro abortion candidates from the ballot you’ll be cool with that, right?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.
So a red state can now add arbitrary requirements for the Democrats' candidate, or keep them off the ballot, right???
And if California demands that Trump show his tax returns to get on the ballot, then I assume that the Democrats' candidate will have to show THEIR tax return too, or be left off the ballots!!!
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
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.
Hey, petunia. Eat this and have a nice day.
"The California law applies only to the primary, not the general election, and that may become a key legal distinction. If Mr. Trump doesn’t appear on the California primary ballot but he wins the Republican nomination, his name would still be on the state’s general-election ballot in November 2020."
given that debt / deficit totally confuses you, I'll excuse you on California legalese ....
Typical LibTard idiocy from the People's Democratic Socialist Republik of Kalipornia...
Here's hoping that some filthy rich Republican out there has money to burn and decides to challenge the law in the courts...
Those are filing requirements, not qualification requirements. It's more about fees and deadlines if anything. But I just want you to remember this:
View attachment 271990
This is what I'll be posting to your reply back on this topic after the court shoots it down.
I think if you get caught with a private server so you can commit espionage you can't be on the ballot.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.
The point is....they want to make sure he doesn't win the popular vote.What would the point be in President Trump being on the Californicated ballot?
It’s already sold to The Democrat Party even if they run a trained seal...an obviously better candidate than any now braying.
Those are filing requirements, not qualification requirements. It's more about fees and deadlines if anything. But I just want you to remember this:
View attachment 271990
This is what I'll be posting to your reply back on this topic after the court shoots it down.
They are requirements to be on the ballot.
I suspect the courts will, but I do not think it is as black and white as your little mind makes is.
I also do not agree with it, but that is irrelevant.
Ballot access laws by state, for anyone that's interested.SCOTUS would fast track this right into the gutter...where it belongs....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.
They did not changes the constitutionally-mandated requirements for president. They added a rule to be on their ballot. Every state already has rules to be on their ballot that are not in the Constitution.
