California strong arm

[Enoch07]

California lawmakers renew bid to get presidential candidates' tax returns

California refuses to allow Trump on its ballot unless he releases his tax returns.

Sounds to me like California is ready to give up its electoral college votes. I'm fine with that.

 

[Twilight Hue]

California lawmakers renew bid to get presidential candidates' tax returns

California refuses to allow Trump on its ballot unless he releases his tax returns.

Sounds to me like California is ready to give up its electoral college votes. I'm fine with that.

Is that even constitutional?

Anyways it's not the least surprising that the Socialist Democrats in charge of the People's Republic of California are privy for running a Banana Republic by intentionally rigging an election that way.

 

[Enoch07]

Is that even constitutional?

Anyways it's not the least surprising that the Socialist Democrats in charge of the People's Republic of California are privy for running a Banana Republic by intentionally rigging an election that way.

I don't think it is constitutional. So there is nothing to worry about really. That's the reason the bill hasn't passed so far, because of the constitutional ramifications. It's just an empty bluff, more dramatics and stage play. You'd think after Jussie Smollett they'd learn that real life doesn't work like in their TV shows. /shrug

 

[dianaiad]

I don't think it is constitutional. So there is nothing to worry about really. That's the reason the bill hasn't passed so far, because of the constitutional ramifications. It's just an empty bluff, more dramatics and stage play. You'd think after Jussie Smollett they'd learn that real life doesn't work like in their TV shows. /shrug

When I read the title of the thread, my first thought was...good heavens. THAT is the epitome of an oxymoron. "California strong arm?"

That's sorta like saying "steel noodles.'

On the other hand, in this case the inability of California to HAVE a 'strong arm' can only be called a good thing. My state (and I've lived in California for over half a century now) has long been known for its, uhmn....

never mind.

 

[Stanyon]

California strongarm sounds like a good name for a mixed drink

 

[fantome profane]

I don't think it is constitutional.

Great, but can you cite any part of the constitution that says they can’t do this? Why do you think it is unconstitutional? What do you base that on?

 

[Enoch07]

Great, but can you cite any part of the constitution that says they can’t do this? Why do you think it is unconstitutional? What do you base that on?

Voting rights in the United States - Wikipedia

15th, 19th, and 26th amendment for starters.

An excerpt: Several constitutional amendments (the 15th, 19th, and 26th specifically) require that voting rights cannot be abridged on account of race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, or age for those above 18.

Preventing Trump from being recognized on the ballot it is violating a citizens right to vote for him.

 

[fantome profane]

Voting rights in the United States - Wikipedia

15th, 19th, and 26th amendment for starters.

An excerpt: Several constitutional amendments (the 15th, 19th, and 26th specifically) require that voting rights cannot be abridged on account of race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, or age for those above 18.

Preventing Trump from being recognized on the ballot it is violating a citizens right to vote for him.

No, it actually doesn’t. Don’t mistake voting rights for the right to be on the ballot. There very different criteria for who can vote vs who gets to be on the ballot.

Voters can always write in any name the choose.

 

[Enoch07]

No, it actually doesn’t. Don’t mistake voting rights for the right to be on the ballot. There very different criteria

Taking away a candidate on the ballot is impeding the voters right to vote.

Has nothing to do with who has the right to be on ballot or not.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I don't think it is constitutional. So there is nothing to worry about really. That's the reason the bill hasn't passed so far, because of the constitutional ramifications. It's just an empty bluff, more dramatics and stage play. You'd think after Jussie Smollett they'd learn that real life doesn't work like in their TV shows. /shrug

These people are definitely not Democrats in our government anymore. They are socialist and closet communists hell-bent on destroying key provisions laid out in our constitution with the goal of instituting a large central controlling government regulating every aspect of a person's life as to what one can say, what one can do, what one can read, and where one can freely go without undergoing being pursued and chased down and subsequently threatened by force of the government.

While there are still some around still, the classic and reasonably respected Blue Dog Democrats have been all but pushed out of the picture, and replaced by the socialists.

It's certainly become obvious now as to what is happening and going on in the country as to what the Socialist Democrats Ambitions are.

Bernie Sanders and AOC are the poster people by their expressed hatred for the United States Constitution and the freedoms held within.

He was frightening then.....

And even more so now than ever.

 

[fantome profane]

Taking away a candidate on the ballot is impeding the voters right to vote.

Has nothing to do with who has the right to be on ballot or not.

No it does not. You can vote for whoever you want to regardless of whether or not their name is on the ballot.

 

[Twilight Hue]

No it does not. You can vote for whoever you want to regardless of whether or not their name is on the ballot.

From newrepublic.com...

"The logic then goes like this: If a state legislature can take back from the voters the right to vote at all for president, it may be able to use ballot-access laws to limit the candidate choices presented to voters".

 

[Enoch07]

These people are definitely not Democrats in our government anymore. They are socialist and closet communists hell-bent on destroying key provisions laid out in our constitution with the goal of instituting a large central controlling government regulating every aspect of a person's life as to what one can say, what one can do, what one can read, and where one can freely go even without being pursued and chased down and subsequently threatened by force of the government.

While there are still some around still, the classic and reasonably respected Blue Dog Democrats have been all but pushed out of the picture, and replaced by the socialists.

It's certainly become obvious now as to what is happening and going on in the country as to what the Socialist Democrats Ambitions are.

Bernie Sanders and AOC are the poster people by their expressed hatred for the United States Constitution and the freedoms held within.

He was frightening then.....

And even more so now than ever.

I miss the days of moderates. They are almost extinct at this point. Heck Biden is an alr right white supremacist fascist for some far lefties. I've taken a screenshot of a tweet. I did censor one of the cuss words next to @ Joe Biden.

 

[Enoch07]

No it does not. You can vote for whoever you want to regardless of whether or not their name is on the ballot.

If the state doesn't recognize the vote it is the same as impeding the voter.

 

[fantome profane]

If the state doesn't recognize the vote it is the same as impeding the voter.

Where did you get the idea that the State would not recognize a write-in vote?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If the state doesn't recognize the vote it is the same as impeding the voter.

The state would have to count it even if it was a write in, but it does impede a substantial number of voters, so you still have a point.

 

[Enoch07]

Where did you get the idea that the State would not recognize a write-in vote?

I wouldn't trust my state Govt to respect my write in vote of a candidate that they have banned from the ballot.

Honestly would you?

 

[fantome profane]

I wouldn't trust my state Govt to respect my write in vote of a candidate that they have banned from the ballot.

Honestly would you?

Yes I would. But I live in a much more advanced civilized country.

 

[Enoch07]

The state would have to count it even if it was a write in, but it does impede a substantial number of voters, so you still have a point.

It's kind of a grey area. But from what I've read from several judges/lawyers, most agree its probably a violation of the constitution. And if the bill does pass the feds can step in and challenge it as a constitutional violation. Which means the bill couldn't be enforced until after a trial, which could take years to conclude. So it just seems kinda pointless, to me anyways.

 

[Enoch07]

Yes I would. But I live in a much more advanced civilized country.

You wouldn't live in an advanced civilized country if they restricted your right to vote though. So that's a catch 22 hehe.