no tax return, no place on ballot

[OKTexas]

I am, QUOTE]

As I said. If you have a point, make it.

It's pretty damn simple commie, you have no clue what you're talking about. It's not illegal for police or anyone else to verify a persons status during a legitimate encounter.

.

They can't unless they contact ICE to do so. Constitution and all "commie".

You're a liar commie, try to get a drivers license or State ID in TX without a US birth certificate or green card, it ain't gonna happen. Also if you are taken into custody by police, they will verify your status. This sanctuary bullshit is illegal in TX and no one is being prosecuted for verifying status.

.

They can verify through ICE. That is their only option. States can NOT enforce immigration.

Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1876),[1] was a United States Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court ruled that the power to set rules surrounding immigration, and to manage foreign relations, rested with the United States Federal Government, rather than with the states.[

Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia

Poor child, simply verifying status is not immigration enforcement, if a person is determined to be in the country illegally, then they inform ICE.

.

 

[OKTexas]

They can't unless they contact ICE to do so. Constitution and all "commie".

That is FALSE!!

Where are you getting this information, dude?

.

Our laws.

LINK?

.

Read the posts. I did.

Then you know which one I should review. There are almost 1000 in this thread.

.

The poor commie child has no fucking clue what he's talking about.

PHOENIX - The nation's high court on Monday cleared the way for Arizona to force state and local police to check the immigration status of those they have stopped.

Without dissent, the U.S. Supreme Court said there is nothing inherently wrong with the requirement for police to make such an effort when there is reason to believe a person is in this country illegally. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said there was no reason to believe, at least at this point, that provision of SB 1070 would be enforced in a way to violate the rights of individuals.

Police can check immigration status without violating rights, court says

TX has a similar law.

Texas lawmakers pass bill allowing police to ask about immigration status

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

That is FALSE!!

Where are you getting this information, dude?

.

Our laws.

LINK?

.

Read the posts. I did.

Then you know which one I should review. There are almost 1000 in this thread.

.

The poor commie child has no fucking clue what he's talking about.

PHOENIX - The nation's high court on Monday cleared the way for Arizona to force state and local police to check the immigration status of those they have stopped.

Without dissent, the U.S. Supreme Court said there is nothing inherently wrong with the requirement for police to make such an effort when there is reason to believe a person is in this country illegally. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said there was no reason to believe, at least at this point, that provision of SB 1070 would be enforced in a way to violate the rights of individuals.

Police can check immigration status without violating rights, court says

TX has a similar law.

Texas lawmakers pass bill allowing police to ask about immigration status

.

This kid doesn't understand the distinction between enforcement and setting policy.

.

 

[Flopper]

Hell yeah, every other president made their tax returns public. I like that. And whilst we are at it, tie in to that public disclosure stuff, a really nasty issue that will piss off liberals. Sanctuary cities, I would tie into that a big federal investigation as to the legality and constitutional nature of sanctuary cities. And those that made it happen, and how they sort of sidestepped their constituents wants and needs. Piddly stuff like that. Being sanctuary cities harm American citizens, the very people that vote, and the fact it was never on any ballot or questionnaire or public debate or inquiry, and that perhaps our noble Dem lib leaders were compromised by the need of groups that profit from exploiting cheap labor illegals represent...I welcome looking to all those deep dark dank secrets of the entitled and greedy. Of whatever ilk. And lets follow all the legal implications.

And this is what is going to happen. What dems in California are doing is putting in a "poison pill" to target individuals. If this is allowed look for it to be the next political game we beat each other up with.

If you want this change it needs to be at a federal level and for the good of the system. Not individual desires and butthurt.

For it to be a poison bill, not being on the primary ballot would have do Trump great harm. The fact is if Trump was not on the primary ballot, the republican state committee would still select Trump pledged delegates to the convention so it would make no difference in the nomination. However, even it was, there is nothing illegal about. The state has control over state elections, an issue republicans have championed over and over.

Fine.

Shut the fuck up when the right pulls this in a payback move.

That really what you want to support? MORE bullshit games?

Payback? Exactly how are going to do that.

 

[OKTexas]

Our laws.

LINK?

.

Read the posts. I did.

Then you know which one I should review. There are almost 1000 in this thread.

.

The poor commie child has no fucking clue what he's talking about.

PHOENIX - The nation's high court on Monday cleared the way for Arizona to force state and local police to check the immigration status of those they have stopped.

Without dissent, the U.S. Supreme Court said there is nothing inherently wrong with the requirement for police to make such an effort when there is reason to believe a person is in this country illegally. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said there was no reason to believe, at least at this point, that provision of SB 1070 would be enforced in a way to violate the rights of individuals.

Police can check immigration status without violating rights, court says

TX has a similar law.

Texas lawmakers pass bill allowing police to ask about immigration status

.

This kid doesn't understand the distinction between enforcement and setting policy.

.

Now if figure he'll sliver away without admitting he was WRONG, that's the commie way. I gave him multiple opportunities to cure his own ignorance, he refused to do so. I guess that would indicate stupidity more than ignorance. LMAO

.

 

[pknopp]

It's pretty damn simple commie, you have no clue what you're talking about. It's not illegal for police or anyone else to verify a persons status during a legitimate encounter.

.

They can't unless they contact ICE to do so. Constitution and all "commie".

You're a liar commie, try to get a drivers license or State ID in TX without a US birth certificate or green card, it ain't gonna happen. Also if you are taken into custody by police, they will verify your status. This sanctuary bullshit is illegal in TX and no one is being prosecuted for verifying status.

.

They can verify through ICE. That is their only option. States can NOT enforce immigration.

Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1876),[1] was a United States Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court ruled that the power to set rules surrounding immigration, and to manage foreign relations, rested with the United States Federal Government, rather than with the states.[

Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia

Poor child, simply verifying status is not immigration enforcement, if a person is determined to be in the country illegally, then they inform ICE.

.

States can not determine who is here legally.and who is not on their own.

 

[pknopp]

That is FALSE!!

Where are you getting this information, dude?

.

Our laws.

LINK?

.

Read the posts. I did.

Then you know which one I should review. There are almost 1000 in this thread.

.

The poor commie child has no fucking clue what he's talking about.

PHOENIX - The nation's high court on Monday cleared the way for Arizona to force state and local police to check the immigration status of those they have stopped.

Without dissent, the U.S. Supreme Court said there is nothing inherently wrong with the requirement for police to make such an effort when there is reason to believe a person is in this country illegally. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said there was no reason to believe, at least at this point, that provision of SB 1070 would be enforced in a way to violate the rights of individuals.

Police can check immigration status without violating rights, court says

TX has a similar law.

Texas lawmakers pass bill allowing police to ask about immigration status

.

They can check the status. By contacting Ice.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It's pretty damn simple commie, you have no clue what you're talking about. It's not illegal for police or anyone else to verify a persons status during a legitimate encounter.

.

They can't unless they contact ICE to do so. Constitution and all "commie".

You're a liar commie, try to get a drivers license or State ID in TX without a US birth certificate or green card, it ain't gonna happen. Also if you are taken into custody by police, they will verify your status. This sanctuary bullshit is illegal in TX and no one is being prosecuted for verifying status.

.

They can verify through ICE. That is their only option. States can NOT enforce immigration.

Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1876),[1] was a United States Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court ruled that the power to set rules surrounding immigration, and to manage foreign relations, rested with the United States Federal Government, rather than with the states.[

Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia

Poor child, simply verifying status is not immigration enforcement, if a person is determined to be in the country illegally, then they inform ICE.

.

States can not determine who is here legally.and who is not on their own.

States cannot decide the qualifications of being here legally, but they can determine who has not met those qualifications.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Our laws.

LINK?

.

Read the posts. I did.

Then you know which one I should review. There are almost 1000 in this thread.

.

The poor commie child has no fucking clue what he's talking about.

PHOENIX - The nation's high court on Monday cleared the way for Arizona to force state and local police to check the immigration status of those they have stopped.

Without dissent, the U.S. Supreme Court said there is nothing inherently wrong with the requirement for police to make such an effort when there is reason to believe a person is in this country illegally. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said there was no reason to believe, at least at this point, that provision of SB 1070 would be enforced in a way to violate the rights of individuals.

Police can check immigration status without violating rights, court says

TX has a similar law.

Texas lawmakers pass bill allowing police to ask about immigration status

.

They can check the status. By contacting Ice.

WRONG.

 

[pknopp]

They can't unless they contact ICE to do so. Constitution and all "commie".

You're a liar commie, try to get a drivers license or State ID in TX without a US birth certificate or green card, it ain't gonna happen. Also if you are taken into custody by police, they will verify your status. This sanctuary bullshit is illegal in TX and no one is being prosecuted for verifying status.

.

They can verify through ICE. That is their only option. States can NOT enforce immigration.

Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1876),[1] was a United States Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court ruled that the power to set rules surrounding immigration, and to manage foreign relations, rested with the United States Federal Government, rather than with the states.[

Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia

Poor child, simply verifying status is not immigration enforcement, if a person is determined to be in the country illegally, then they inform ICE.

.

States can not determine who is here legally.and who is not on their own.

States cannot decide the qualifications of being here legally, but they can determine who has not met those qualifications.

.

How?

 

[Flopper]

And whether Trump releases his tax returns or not, he will still be the republican nominee.

That's the point I'm making. If the little commies come up with some scheme to have a primary race for the Republicans in their state, and Trump tells them to beat a salt bag with their additional requirements, they may try to use that as disqualification from being on their general ballot.

Flopper, they are doing this for a reason. What do you suppose that reason is?????

Republicans in California adopted the primary as method of determining voter preference in 1912. It is a closed primary.

If Trump decides not to put his name on the primary ballot, the California State Republican Committee will simply ignore the election and select Trump pledged nominees to assure the nomination.

If California passes the law for the general election and I hope they do because what might unfold would be really interesting.

The issue before the courts would be the right of states to control their elections. Republicans have long been a champion of this issue as were southern democrats in the mid 20th century as well as the late 1800's. The Supreme Court rulings have always upheld the right the states to control elections in their state.

Add to the mix the fact that a dozen other state legislatures are considering similar legislation.

Unfortunately, I don't see this train going anywhere for following reasons.

At least a half dozen lawsuits are being filed in federal court and at least one of the courts is going temporary block the law till the case is heard. Since there is less than 5 months before the deadline for releasing tax returns, this may effective solve the problem for Trump.

However, if the courts do not block the law Trump may end the issue by releasing his returns.

If other states joint California, then Trump will certainly release his returns unless there is damning information in the returns which would lead him into criminal court.

The answer to your question as to the reason for this, I refer to the governors statement.
“These are extraordinary times and states have a legal and moral duty to do everything in their power to ensure leaders seeking the highest offices meet minimal standards, and to restore public confidence,” California Governor Gavin Newsom said in a statement announcing the bill signing.

And he is full of shit because this has nothing to do with standards. It has to do with Trump not willing to release his returns. Blackmail.

This so-called law is aimed at one thing only and one candidate only. Would you be happy with states making laws against any candidate including Democrat candidates?

Forcing a candidate to release his returns is illegal. It's a violation of the Fourth Amendment as well as the US qualifications to run for this office. If successful, California Electoral Votes should be rejected in the next presidential election. They need to be their own country and leave our union.

I don't think that will fly in courts.
Is California doing unreasonable searches or seizures? Are they issuing warrants to seize documents or property from Trump on his person or in his home or business? Are the primary registration requirements different for Trump than all other candidates?

The fact is registering for the California primarily is completely voluntary. It is not a requirement to be president so how is the state changing the presidential requirements?

California is not compelling Trump to register. The state is not forcing Trump to do anything. So how in hell can it be a violation of the 4th amendment?

It may not seem unfair that Trump may be the only candidate inconvenience by this law but remember states have often made changes in election registration requirements such as number signatures needed on a petition to be put on the ballot, registration information required of the candidate, and in fact which political parities will be allowed a primary.

Apparently you are not familiar enough with the constitution to understand that neither primaries nor a general presidential election in a state is required by the constitution. If the state of California so desired it could abolish the primaries and general election and appoint electors to the Electoral College and it would be constitution. This should indicate the degree of control states have over their elections.

Great, and when we get another candidate like DumBama, maybe our state will require candidates show their college transcripts, how their college was funded, and original birth certificate.

After all, if states are going to require things that have nothing to do with the presidency, why not a nude picture of your wife while we're at it?

Sure, tax returns, college transcripts, birth certificates, etc. As long as it applies to all candidates and helps voters make informed choices. Nude pictures of wives would probably not be considered information needed to make an informed choice of a president.

However, the tax return is probably the most important. Tax returns contain vital information such as whether a candidate or a president has paid any taxes; what they own; what they’ve borrowed and from whom; whether they’ve made charitable contributions; whether they’ve taken advantage of tax loopholes or offshore tax shelters; and whether they have foreign bank accounts. Only a full release of tax returns can provide the public with clear information as to potential conflicts of interest and whether there could be potential entanglements with foreign governments and foreign businesses.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You're a liar commie, try to get a drivers license or State ID in TX without a US birth certificate or green card, it ain't gonna happen. Also if you are taken into custody by police, they will verify your status. This sanctuary bullshit is illegal in TX and no one is being prosecuted for verifying status.

.

They can verify through ICE. That is their only option. States can NOT enforce immigration.

Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1876),[1] was a United States Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court ruled that the power to set rules surrounding immigration, and to manage foreign relations, rested with the United States Federal Government, rather than with the states.[

Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia

Poor child, simply verifying status is not immigration enforcement, if a person is determined to be in the country illegally, then they inform ICE.

.

States can not determine who is here legally.and who is not on their own.

States cannot decide the qualifications of being here legally, but they can determine who has not met those qualifications.

.

How?

Checking green cards, for example.

.

 

[pknopp]

They can verify through ICE. That is their only option. States can NOT enforce immigration.

Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1876),[1] was a United States Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court ruled that the power to set rules surrounding immigration, and to manage foreign relations, rested with the United States Federal Government, rather than with the states.[

Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia

Poor child, simply verifying status is not immigration enforcement, if a person is determined to be in the country illegally, then they inform ICE.

.

States can not determine who is here legally.and who is not on their own.

States cannot decide the qualifications of being here legally, but they can determine who has not met those qualifications.

.

How?

Checking green cards, for example.

.

I don't have one. Do you?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Poor child, simply verifying status is not immigration enforcement, if a person is determined to be in the country illegally, then they inform ICE.

.

States can not determine who is here legally.and who is not on their own.

States cannot decide the qualifications of being here legally, but they can determine who has not met those qualifications.

.

How?

Checking green cards, for example.

.

I don't have one. Do you?

Do you have any form of valid ID?

.

 

[pknopp]

States can not determine who is here legally.and who is not on their own.

States cannot decide the qualifications of being here legally, but they can determine who has not met those qualifications.

.

How?

Checking green cards, for example.

.

I don't have one. Do you?

Do you have any form of valid ID?

.

Depends. What am I doing?

 

[OKTexas]

Our laws.

LINK?

.

Read the posts. I did.

Then you know which one I should review. There are almost 1000 in this thread.

.

The poor commie child has no fucking clue what he's talking about.

PHOENIX - The nation's high court on Monday cleared the way for Arizona to force state and local police to check the immigration status of those they have stopped.

Without dissent, the U.S. Supreme Court said there is nothing inherently wrong with the requirement for police to make such an effort when there is reason to believe a person is in this country illegally. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said there was no reason to believe, at least at this point, that provision of SB 1070 would be enforced in a way to violate the rights of individuals.

Police can check immigration status without violating rights, court says

TX has a similar law.

Texas lawmakers pass bill allowing police to ask about immigration status

.

They can check the status. By contacting Ice.

Wow, so you lie in the face of evidence. You're one pathetic individual. They can ask for documents, green card, birth certificate or passport, I guess they could check with ICE also, but it's not required.

.

 

[pknopp]

LINK?

.

Read the posts. I did.

Then you know which one I should review. There are almost 1000 in this thread.

.

The poor commie child has no fucking clue what he's talking about.

PHOENIX - The nation's high court on Monday cleared the way for Arizona to force state and local police to check the immigration status of those they have stopped.

Without dissent, the U.S. Supreme Court said there is nothing inherently wrong with the requirement for police to make such an effort when there is reason to believe a person is in this country illegally. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said there was no reason to believe, at least at this point, that provision of SB 1070 would be enforced in a way to violate the rights of individuals.

Police can check immigration status without violating rights, court says

TX has a similar law.

Texas lawmakers pass bill allowing police to ask about immigration status

.

They can check the status. By contacting Ice.

Wow, so you lie in the face of evidence. You're one pathetic individual. They can ask for documents, green card, birth certificate or passport, I guess they could check with ICE also, but it's not required.

.

I have none of those things on me. you?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

States cannot decide the qualifications of being here legally, but they can determine who has not met those qualifications.

.

How?

Checking green cards, for example.

.

I don't have one. Do you?

Do you have any form of valid ID?

.

Depends. What am I doing?

Exactly.

.

 

[pknopp]

How?

Checking green cards, for example.

.

I don't have one. Do you?

Do you have any form of valid ID?

.

Depends. What am I doing?

Exactly.

.

So it depends on what I am doing whether or not I have an I.D. on me. How does not having one verify anything?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Checking green cards, for example.

.

I don't have one. Do you?

Do you have any form of valid ID?

.

Depends. What am I doing?

Exactly.

.

So it depends on what I am doing whether or not I have an I.D. on me. How does not having one verify anything?

When would police take the time to check an ID?

Do you live in Texas?

We have 200,000 illegals driving illegally.

.