Support Free Republic Folks, Donate Today!
No offense to outnumbered conservative Californians, but...California is the lost cause state. I guess New York is in that category as well.
When our side makes laws aimed at Democrat misbehavior, they go to a court and get it quashed usually by the end of the same day the law is passed, end of story.
Off the Wall Ping!
Contact to be added.
I’ll call you one bill of Attainder and and raise you one ipso facto law.
When does the shooting start?
5.56mm
Love them
Requiring some sort of birth record would actually facilitate ascertaining constitutional “requirements” (scare quotes, because no “requirement” in the constitution is actually required) of age and birth citizenship. There is nothing controversial about demanding that as a condition of appearing on the ballot. Heck, I have to show proof of citizenship just to get certain state and federal ID papers.
I like the health records one.
If CA gets away with this, TX should require health records. The CA whore will have to disclose her Chlamydia or whatever other STDs she has or has had.
I like it, but I think it is the wrong approach.
President Trump should declare this an act of Secession and Declare Martial Law in California, and Appoint a Special Master, preferably a General or Admiral to handle the affairs of the new Territory. We used to HANG those convicted of Treason , see Lincoln.
To guarantee standing a Libertarian candidate (I am sure the Libertarian Party could have primaries in CA) should also file, on the basis that he is running on a personal privacy platform, and handing over tax records to the public would undermine his own morals.
Support Free Republic Folks, Donate Today!
Or Blockbuster rentals...
But I'm dating myself...
-PJ
Unconstitutional on it’s face. States have no authority to define, add to, or take away from the Constitutional requirements for the office of President. This is not a State’s Rights or 10th Amendment issue as the Constitution clearly defines the requirements (thus the 10th does not apply)
Why only the president? Why not every state and federal official?
Man oh man, where would all of us be if it were not for Judaical Watch. They do yeomens work.
Heard this mentioned once, would like to hear from someone more learned on Constitutional issues than I - would this not amount to a Bill Of Attainder?
It sure would be interesting if Tulsi Gabbard took a dive into Kamala Harris’ handling of the charity filings by various high profile charities.
Are the Epstein charities or the Clinton charities in compliance with California law. (hint — be skeptical of the online response and double-check)
more hints...check out CrowdSourceTheTruth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSf-JPXlQ-o
SNITCH
Sunday with Charles – SNITCH on Aug 04, 2019
Tulsi Gabbard Tulsi Gabbard Tulsi Gabbard
ML/NJ
Once again JW doing ALL the heavy lifting for the GOL, MSM, et al
During the 2017-2018 legislative session, then-Governor Jerry Brown vetoed a previous version of this law, which California’s Legislative Counsel concluded “would be unconstitutional if enacted.” In vetoing the 2017-18 tax return law, Brown noted: First, it may not be constitutional. Second, it sets a “slippery slope” precedent. Today we require tax returns, but what would be next? Five years of health records? A certified birth certificate? High school report cards? And will these requirements vary depending on which political party is in power? A qualified candidate’s ability to appear on the ballot is fundamental to our democratic system. For that reason, I hesitate to start down a road that well might lead to an ever escalating set of differing state requirements for presidential candidates.
Thanks jazusamo.