Posted on 09/22/2019 9:35:17 AM PDT by jazusamo
We’re all used to seeing California throw its weight around, but its new law requiring a presidential candidate to provide five years of tax returns to be eligible to appear on a primary ballot is a new low. Now, however, a federal district court judge has blocked the state from enforcing it, at least temporarily.
It’s the right decision. The law is nothing more than a political attack on President Donald Trump, the federal elections process, and the right of free association of citizens and all political parties.
California is weighing its options, but if it chooses to appeal, the Ninth Circuit should affirm the district judge’s decision because the law violates the presidential Qualifications Clause and the First Amendment of the Constitution.
The Qualifications Clause in Article II, Section 1 sets out the sole requirements to be president of the United States. You must be a “natural born Citizen,” 35 years of age, and a resident “within” the U.S. for 14 years.
The key case on this is U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995). There was a movement across the country in the late 1980s and early 1990s to impose term limits on members of Congress. This political movement ended, however, when the U.S. Supreme Court held in Thornton that an Arkansas law limiting the number of terms that a member of Congress could serve was a violation of the separate Qualifications Clauses that apply to members of Congress. The Arkansas law provided that once a representative or senator reached the maximum term, he could not have his name “placed on the ballot” — a ballot-access restriction akin to California’s new law.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
California cannot constitutionally create federal law.
The spirit of the law is to block Trump from the 2020 election.
For 100 years plus, it has been already decided you can’t write a law targeting specific individuals or organizations.
This demand that only persons who reveal their last five Federal tax returns may be placed on the preferential ballot for the Presidency amounts to a “bill of attainder”, a law written specifically to target one person or one very select group of persons.
No Bill of Attainder...shall be passed.
ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 3, US Constitution
The way this should be handled by CA GOP
Bring out Who were the sponsors and who in both houses voted for this piece of junk. Probably the same people who voted for a jump in all sorts of taxes and stupid regulations that’s jacked up the cost of living .
I didn’t know we had a GOP in California
But they can certainly try. Hollyweirdo sends the message in their movies and through their stars.
True but they try they still think they are a 3rd world country just because they act like one.
Yes they do try, and they keep trying.
Hollywood, outspoken liberals and leftist politicians just keep flinging stuff against the wall hoping something will stick.
They could care less about the Constitution, precedents already established and written law.
They want it their way and will anything to get it.
California cannot constitutionally create federal law.
California has the right to conduct its own elections as it sees fit—even elections for federal offices. In fact, California is not required by the Constitution to conduct an election for President at all. It could, if it wished, simply award the electoral votes to whichever candidate the legislature choses. Now, they aren’t quite willing to pull off something like that yet, but give them time.
I suppose. I’ll have to look into that.
I guess my initial thought is CA can’t tell the feds or other states what to do.
That law is invalid. Ca can leave. A flag with 49 stars won’t look bad.
With the kind of seditious and subversive actions that the Communists running the state government in Commiefornia have been taking of late, they should not be permitted to be seated in either house of Congress nor should they be permitted to vote on any matters that come before Congress.
I didn’t know we had a GOP in California
I didn’t know there is a serious recall going on against Newsom. Someone sent me all of the info this AM.
I didn’t know we had a GOP in California
I didn’t know there is a serious recall going on against Newsom. Someone sent me all of the info this AM.
The constitution does not require a republican candidate be on the ballot. It only lays out the qualifications for the individual by age, not political party. If the dems cannot get 1 or 2 in the primary they are out. That’s how we get two dems running, not enough republican votes. No leadership, no platform, no charisma.
The dems are running things now in CAL get used to it.
Easy Peasy. Seven rows of seven.
Yes. While written broadly enough it is clear it is meant to target Trump. And in addition to the many other reasons mentioned such a law forecloses the people the right to vote for a candidate of a tax-protest group who refuses to turn over or file tax returns as a political expression; or, to a poor person who does not need to file tax returns because he/she has little to no income.
Yes, we did that for a year in ‘50-’60. Alaska was admitted before July 4, 1959 and Hawaii after. Looked a bit wrong when compared to the 48-star flag.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.