California Gov Signs Bill To Exclude Trump From 2020 Election Ballot (SP 27)

[Shadow Wolf]

True. Oh well that's fine with me. She shouldn't be in Congress either imo. She isn't loyal to the U.S. so that should revoke her office and her citizenship imo.

Which goes back to my question of does the issue of her being ineligible by birth impede upon the right to vote of her supporters?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes but 1 party specifically is opposed to proof of citizenship for voting. Says a lot imo.

It says a lot about Tepublicans because they couldn't produce evidence of the alleged voter fraud, they still haven't produced it, and if you dont register to vote you can't vote. If Jane Schwarblez shows up to vote and shes not on the list of those registered, she can't vote. Joe Dert can, however, because he registered and his names on the list.

 

[Revoltingest]

If I ever knew it, I'd forgotten it.

Hey, I was just asking out of curiosity.
For a woman to be drafted is highly unusual in Ameristan.
But yes, that is sufficient.

Btw, @Ellen Brown, I might ask again some day because of memory issues.

 

[Enoch07]

Which goes back to my question of does the issue of her being ineligible by birth impede upon the right to vote of her supporters?

No because she isn't eligible based on the constitution. Which was wrote a long time ago before she was born.

Making a state law on the fly to prohibit someone currently running is an entirely different matter though.

 

[Enoch07]

It says a lot about Tepublicans because they couldn't produce evidence of the alleged voter fraud, they still haven't produced it, and if you dont register to vote you can't vote.

You still haven't answered my question.

Why do you want to allow a non-citizen to vote?

If Jane Schwarblez shows up to vote and shes not on the list of those registered, she can't vote. Joe Dert can, however, because he registered and his names on the list.

Laws have to followed, even when you disagree with them.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Why do you want to allow a non-citizen to vote?

Did I say I do?

Making a state law on the fly to prohibit someone currently running is an entirely different matter though.

When it comes to the primaries, even the parties make stuff up on the go. And this bill isn't prohibiting Trump from appearing on California primary election ballots. All he has to do is submit his tax forms.

No because she isn't eligible based on the constitution.

According to the Constitution, powers not specified or prohibited in the Constitution are left to the state. Primary elections and eligibility for primary elections really aren't delegated by the Constitution.

 

[Shad]

Who's right to vote is being denied?

Voting rights are linked with the right to run for office. This law is a bar to running by creating a requirement only made due to Trump not present in the Constitution.

Are all requirements to run illegal?

No per the Constitution for requires to run as POTUS.

What about requirements that are more burdensome?

Such as?

Also, you mentioned the same amendments I did. They expanded the right to vote. However, running for office isn't an inherent right as that is no where written in the Constitution.

Wrong. See the requirements to run for POTUS. SCOTUS has ruled multiple times the right to vote goes with the right to run for office.The same rights that let people vote are used to let people run for office as per 1a.

Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 357

 

[ecco]

For years there were news reports every so often wherein some loon group in California threatened to secede from America.

As did Texas. What is your point?

 

[suncowiam]

Not really. It is evidence they didn't watch the public debate video on the bill before it became a law.

A debate video on a bill that became law?

A bill that became law can be invalidated by a debate video?

Think about that for a moment and let it sulk in.

 

[Enoch07]

Did I say I do?

If you are against voter I.D. you support non-citizen voting.

If you support citizen only voting, then you would support voter I.D.

These are mutually exclusive ideas.

If there is nothing to hide then what's the harm.

When it comes to the primaries, even the parties make stuff up on the go. And this bill isn't prohibiting Trump from appearing on California primary election ballots. All he has to do is submit his tax forms.

You can try to justify it all day. But the state is impeding its voters from voting for the sitting President. The law didn't exist until now. It was made specifically for this purpose. It is a blatant abuse of power.

According to the Constitution, powers not specified or prohibited in the Constitution are left to the state. Primary elections and eligibility for primary elections really aren't delegated by the Constitution.

According the Constitution Trump meets the requirements.

 

[We Never Know]

If you are against voter I.D. you support non-citizen voting.

If you support citizen only voting, then you would support voter I.D.

These are mutually exclusive ideas.

If there is nothing to hide then what's the harm.



You can try to justify it all day. But the state is impeding its voters from voting for the sitting President. The law didn't exist until now. It was made specifically for this purpose. It is a blatant abuse of power.



According the Constitution Trump meets the requirements.

I gave you the win frube because IMO an ID should be shown to vote.
We have to show an ID to drink, to purchase numerous things and to get into numerous places so yes an ID should be presented to vote.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If you are against voter I.D. you support non-citizen voting.

Assumption, and inaccurate. It's just as easy, and it often happens, that you have your identity confirmed when you register. If there is confusion, better records should be kept or better efforts to verify identity when one registers to vote.

If there is nothing to hide then what's the harm.

That mentality often leads to our rights being trampled, such as when Bush Jr. justified the PATRIOT act with that same mentality.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

(computer issues posted my last post before I was ready)

But the state is impeding its voters from voting for the sitting President.

He'll be on the general election ballot. How are voters being impeded?

According the Constitution Trump meets the requirements.

Meeting the Constitutional requirements does not automatically mean one meets the requirements to be on the ballot at the state level for primary or general elections.

 

[columbus]

This law is a bar to running by creating a requirement only made due to Trump not present in the Constitution.

This law only applies in California. Where in the Constitution are states prohibited from making their own laws concerning presidential elections? I don't even think that the states are required to hold an election, although I'm not a constitutional scholar and somebody could demonstrate that I'm wrong.

I asked Enoch7 a question and all he did was dodge. So I'll ask you the same one.
When the state of Indiana added the requirement of a government issued picture ID to vote, do you think it was a constitutional law?
Tom

 

[SugarOcean]

A debate video on a bill that became law?

A bill that became law can be invalidated by a debate video?

Think about that for a moment and let it sulk in.

No need. You 've no idea what you're talking about.
See, in America this is how Democracy works.
A bill comes before the legislature. I'll make it short. The people who stand to be effected by the bill are allowed to give their opinions about said bill which is made public.
Then the bill is voted on by said legislature. First the house and if it passes then the senate. And then if it passes there it goes to the governor's desk for signature.
The governor can sign within 30 days and make the bill law. Or, he can shelf it and on the 31st day it becomes law without his signature, responsibility for making the bill law.
Let that sink in for a moment.

 

[Shad]

This law only applies in California. Where in the Constitution are states prohibited from making their own laws concerning presidential elections?

The Constitution has two requirements for POTUS. Neither are about tax returns. Fed trumps State.

I don't even think that the states are required to hold an election, although I'm not a constitutional scholar and somebody could demonstrate that I'm wrong.

Williams v. Rhodes which states the Equal Protection Clause, 4a, can not be violated by declining a person a place on the ballot.There are multiple cases shooting down requirements to be on a ballot.

Bullock v. Carter
Lubin v. Panish
Storer v. Brown
Illinois State Board of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party

When the state of Indiana added the requirement of a government issued picture ID to vote, do you think it was a constitutional law?
Tom

Nope as it ensures the voters are citizens. ID is easy to get. It is required for all sorts of things that have less impact than voting. Want a beer? ID.

 

[Enoch07]

Assumption, and inaccurate. It's just as easy, and it often happens, that you have your identity confirmed when you register.

Identity yes, but not citizenship. As explained in this story.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...ivers-licenses-could-lead-to-voter-fraud/amp/

That's why voter I.D. specifically should be about confirming citizenship to vote.

If there is confusion, better records should be kept or better efforts to verify identity when one registers to vote.

That's what voter I.D. is supposed to do but the Dems are against it.

That mentality often leads to our rights being trampled, such as when Bush Jr. justified the PATR

Such as forcing someone to release tax returns when its supposed to be voluntary?

 

[Enoch07]

He'll be on the general election ballot.

Well we will see.

Meeting the Constitutional requirements does not automatically mean one meets the requirements to be on the ballot at the state level for primary or general elections.

If you are the sitting President I'd say that qualifies ya.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Identity yes, but not citizenship. As explained in this story.

That's going to be a concern of the past as Real ID becomes a thing in all states.

Such as forcing someone to release tax returns when its supposed to be voluntary?

There is no right to run for public office, and indeed releasing tax forms is a very minor thing compared to other loop holes one must jump through.
Ballot access for presidential candidates - Ballotpedia

 

[SugarOcean]

This law only applies in California. Where in the Constitution are states prohibited from making their own laws concerning presidential elections? I don't even think that the states are required to hold an election, although I'm not a constitutional scholar and somebody could demonstrate that I'm wrong.

I asked Enoch7 a question and all he did was dodge. So I'll ask you the same one.
When the state of Indiana added the requirement of a government issued picture ID to vote, do you think it was a constitutional law?
Tom

If you watch the debate video where the people of California were able to speak about this bill you'll find a reference to the California Constitution particularly.
The Federal Constitution Supremacy Clause insures the conditions for Presidential candidate remain in force as the "law of the land".
Federal law supersedes state law. Article II, California Constitution - Ballotpedia

This political circus California, no real surprise that it is in California that this happened, should cause people to consider the intention, besides political theater. Imagine if a state can make a law that prohibits someone from being on a ballot in a national election.
For whatever reason said Legislature feels a potential candidate, or a President running for re-election, is deemed unworthy by said Legislature. Who in California are partisan because California is a Blue state.

Imagine if every state could make their selective laws, all different, all making terms and conditions that limit access to the ballot.