Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: knighthawk

It will be ruled unconstitutional in a few months.


5 posted on 09/01/2019 11:31:25 PM PDT by Vendome (I've Gotta Be Me https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0ndRzaz2o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Vendome

When any law is passed that the Left hates a judge strikes it down or puts it on pause within 24 hours.


10 posted on 09/02/2019 12:01:28 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (Denounce DUAC - The Democrats Un-American Activists Committee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Vendome

Has anyone actually filed a lawsuit against it yet? Nothing angers me more than Republicans who whine about something but do nothing to change it. They are not powerless; I think they are being lazy.


18 posted on 09/02/2019 5:55:21 AM PDT by Wiser now (Socialism does not eliminate poverty, it guarantees it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Vendome

It’s unconstitutional for federal races, but it may be OK for stand and local races.


19 posted on 09/02/2019 6:00:07 AM PDT by Dave W
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Vendome

I agree.

Remember things move slowly through the courts, but this won’t see election time.


20 posted on 09/02/2019 6:32:42 AM PDT by LS ("Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually" (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Vendome

It will be ruled unconstitutional in a few months.


True that. Plus it does not account for the 24th Amendment of Presidential succession. Do all cabinet member nominees have to supply tax returns as well? As well as the House Speaker.


23 posted on 09/02/2019 7:01:29 AM PDT by RideForever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Vendome

It will be ruled unconstitutional in a few months.


Remind me. Which Federal court District is California in?


33 posted on 09/02/2019 9:10:00 AM PDT by hanamizu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Vendome

I don’t know why people think it is going to be struck down.

Presidential primaries are entirely voluntary by the state (they aren’t required to hold them under the Constitution or any federal statute) and by the parties (they aren’t required to use their results in deciding delegates, and no party in no state solely relies upon the primary to choose their delegates). Many states have NO Presidential primary at all for some or all parties, who have opted for caucuses.

States are always free to add additional ballot access requirements beyond those of the Constitutional qualification for the office, and often do, include all variety of registration requirements.

The President isn’t elected at all, electors are elected, and no one is proposing to limit ballot access of proposed members of the Electoral College to those who disclose their taxes.

The Constitutionally penurious way for the Courts to deal with is to say “California can put whatever facially neutral requirements on ballot access it wants, and the California Republican Party can opt to choose its delegates by caucus or meeting of the State Executive Board of the Party if it feels the primary isn’t going to be an accurate means of ascertaining support for Presidential candidates.”


38 posted on 09/02/2019 12:42:32 PM PDT by only1percent ( who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson