Can Congress change requirements for office?

Mad_Jack_Flint

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2020
Messages
2,973
Reaction score
2,135
Points
1,903
I ask because of this
Senate Democrats make democracy reform first bill of new majority (msn.com)
The bill, which is endorsed by a wide swath of progressive and civil rights groups, includes, among other things, changes to voter registration requirements, more funding for election security, requirements for presidents and vice presidents to disclose their tax returns and new ethics rules for members of Congress.
The Constitution lists the requirements to run for President and Congress changing them isnt mentioned.
GRANTED, the statists never care about the Constitution to begin with.. but still
Congress is the legislating body so as long as they don’t pass something that contradicts the limitations to power outlined in the constitution then that’s their job. So yes they can legally do this.
The Constitution does not give Congress the power to determine the qualifications for President, so it doesn't have that power. Simple, really.
I never said congress has the power to determine who is qualified to run. They can regulate the process though and of background checks and financial disclosures are part of the process then that’s totally within their power to manage
What's the purpose of the background checks and financial disclosures?
To assess risk and provide transparency about the candidate
So, adding an eligibility requirement?

Exactly.

Unconstitutional.

You want to change it? AMEND!!!

No more of this obtuse nonsense:


It's alive. IT'S ALIVE!!!
That’s not what I said or what it is. It’s part of the process that a constitutionally eligible candidate undertakes to run
CANNOT be a bar to eligibility.

It is not impossible to amend the eligibility requirements to require "financial disclosures in a manner prescribed by Congress."

The question is why are so many people so quick to ignore the plain language of the Constitution when the amendment process has been available since the beginning?

Because it's too hard?

TOUGH SHIT! THAT'S THE POINT!!!
It doesn’t bar eligibility the candidate is eligible if the meet the requirements of the constitution. Then there is the actual process that states, feds and elections boards require to run a campaign.

I’m curious as to why you’re so against it? It won’t apply to Trump.
So, let me ask it this way.

If a candidate refuses to turn over financials and submit to a background check, should that candidate be allowed to run?

I am asking purely from a legal/constitutional perspective. I already know your opinion. I am asking you about your interpretation of law.
I do not know how Slade responded but in my personal opinion if a law was passed I believe the USSC would slap it down as unconstitutional and would tell the Congress they must pass an Amendment to be ratified by the States...
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
38,454
Reaction score
5,888
Points
1,140
I find it fascinating that after all this drama about fraudulent elections y’all turn around and fight against security measures for elections. Is it just because Dems are proposing it?
Off topic and irrelevant to a presidential candidate's eligibility.
you know we already have financial disclosures that are part of running for president.
Unconstitutional if refusing is a bar to being eligible.

The General Welfare clause has been misinterpreted to disgusting degree and needs to be remedied.
My other comment was not irrelevant. Let me ask another way. Do you think the current financial disclosures that are required to run for president are illegal and if so have you spoken out against them or see any challenges by anybody to their constitutionality. Why or why not?
Like most unconstitutional bullshit, there is so much of it, it is hard for anyone to keep track, much less raise legal challenges.

I think we need to repeal all federal law and start over.

Does that answer your question?
It answers it in a round about way. Am I safe to assume the direct answers to my questions would be. Yes you object to the existing financial disclosures. And No you never took issue and never heard of anybody taking issue with the legality of it. Is that correct?
Correct but entirely irrelevant. Like I said, there is so much unconstitutional bullshit out there, it is impossible to police it all.

Most candidates don't object because it is politically expedient to not object. Still doesn't change the unconstitutionality of said restraints.
I agree but it does set a precedent of sorts and is a pretty good point, it’s ok to give me some credit :)
 

Mad_Jack_Flint

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2020
Messages
2,973
Reaction score
2,135
Points
1,903
Anyone who was born after the year 1980 will not be registered as a presidential candidate.

Constitutional?

It's the registration process. Not eligibility.

What about a "bacon" registration requirement. Any candidate who does not eat bacon while submitting registration documents will not be registered.

Constitutional?

That's a good (evil) way to keep jews and muslims out of the whitehouse.
I can get on board with banning anyone who doesn’t eat bacon.

cant be trusted.
Muslim

Jews

and Some Christians would be banned...

Chinese eat bacon...
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
38,454
Reaction score
5,888
Points
1,140
I ask because of this
Senate Democrats make democracy reform first bill of new majority (msn.com)
The bill, which is endorsed by a wide swath of progressive and civil rights groups, includes, among other things, changes to voter registration requirements, more funding for election security, requirements for presidents and vice presidents to disclose their tax returns and new ethics rules for members of Congress.
The Constitution lists the requirements to run for President and Congress changing them isnt mentioned.
GRANTED, the statists never care about the Constitution to begin with.. but still
Congress is the legislating body so as long as they don’t pass something that contradicts the limitations to power outlined in the constitution then that’s their job. So yes they can legally do this.
The Constitution does not give Congress the power to determine the qualifications for President, so it doesn't have that power. Simple, really.
I never said congress has the power to determine who is qualified to run. They can regulate the process though and of background checks and financial disclosures are part of the process then that’s totally within their power to manage
Where does the Constitution say that? Congress can regulate Congressional elections, and nothing else.
Article 1
which section?
8
Lol ok.... what part?
The last part
Lol you arent very good at this.
I’m giving you direct answers to your questions. It’s the no spin zone
"last part" :lol:
Clause 18, the necessary and proper clause, gives congress the power to legislate to fulfill their duties outlines in clauses 1-17.
Please point out what enumerated power they have, where they can constitutionally add provisions to the requirements of being able to run for president.
I’ve already answered this. Congress isn’t changing the eligibility they are defining the process. The constitution defines who is eligible but does not specify the process to undertake to run the election. That is determined by the people. Our elected officials.
So, if a candidate refuses to turn over financials and submit to a background check, it is your opinion that said candidate is ineligible?

If a candidate did refuse, would that candidate still be allowed to take office if elected?

This is the problem with you "it's alive" people. You can spin anything to mean what you want it to, including the words "shall not be infringed" to mean "shall be infringed" and other such nonsense WITHOUT needing to be bothered by the amendment process.
The candidate would be eligible if they meet the criteria of the constitution. They would not be registered if they don’t follow the registration process.
So, your opinion is that we could set up a registration process that has requirements that would eliminate otherwise eligible candidates and that would be okay? Constitutional?
That would depend on what the process requires. Disclosures and security checks are quite different than making a requirement that the candidate serve in public office to run for prez or that a candidate must be a millionaire... stuff like that
 

Mad_Jack_Flint

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2020
Messages
2,973
Reaction score
2,135
Points
1,903
I ask because of this
Senate Democrats make democracy reform first bill of new majority (msn.com)
The bill, which is endorsed by a wide swath of progressive and civil rights groups, includes, among other things, changes to voter registration requirements, more funding for election security, requirements for presidents and vice presidents to disclose their tax returns and new ethics rules for members of Congress.
The Constitution lists the requirements to run for President and Congress changing them isnt mentioned.
GRANTED, the statists never care about the Constitution to begin with.. but still
Congress is the legislating body so as long as they don’t pass something that contradicts the limitations to power outlined in the constitution then that’s their job. So yes they can legally do this.
The Constitution does not give Congress the power to determine the qualifications for President, so it doesn't have that power. Simple, really.
I never said congress has the power to determine who is qualified to run. They can regulate the process though and of background checks and financial disclosures are part of the process then that’s totally within their power to manage
Where does the Constitution say that? Congress can regulate Congressional elections, and nothing else.
Article 1
which section?
8
Lol ok.... what part?
The last part
The bullshit part that you allege means Congress can do anything it wants?
I find it fascinating that after all this drama about fraudulent elections y’all turn around and fight against security measures for elections. Is it just because Dems are proposing it?

you know we already have financial disclosures that are part of running for president. Did y’all put up a fuss about those or is it just the tax return thing because of the Trump situation
Personally for me it is not about Trump and until Richard Nixon it was unheard of ( I think Romney dad did it before Nixon ) a candidate for President to disclose their tax returns...

Personally for me I believe it for the individual to divulge if they want and shouldn’t be forced...
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
28,999
Reaction score
13,164
Points
1,100
Location
Tejas
I find it fascinating that after all this drama about fraudulent elections y’all turn around and fight against security measures for elections. Is it just because Dems are proposing it?
Off topic and irrelevant to a presidential candidate's eligibility.
you know we already have financial disclosures that are part of running for president.
Unconstitutional if refusing is a bar to being eligible.

The General Welfare clause has been misinterpreted to disgusting degree and needs to be remedied.
My other comment was not irrelevant. Let me ask another way. Do you think the current financial disclosures that are required to run for president are illegal and if so have you spoken out against them or see any challenges by anybody to their constitutionality. Why or why not?
Like most unconstitutional bullshit, there is so much of it, it is hard for anyone to keep track, much less raise legal challenges.

I think we need to repeal all federal law and start over.

Does that answer your question?
It answers it in a round about way. Am I safe to assume the direct answers to my questions would be. Yes you object to the existing financial disclosures. And No you never took issue and never heard of anybody taking issue with the legality of it. Is that correct?
Correct but entirely irrelevant. Like I said, there is so much unconstitutional bullshit out there, it is impossible to police it all.

Most candidates don't object because it is politically expedient to not object. Still doesn't change the unconstitutionality of said restraints.
I agree but it does set a precedent of sorts and is a pretty good point, it’s ok to give me some credit :)
That no one has questioned it does set an expectation for the public. Yes.


But that should never be the basis for constitutional scrutiny.
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
38,454
Reaction score
5,888
Points
1,140
Anyone who was born after the year 1980 will not be registered as a presidential candidate.

Constitutional?

It's the registration process. Not eligibility.

What about a "bacon" registration requirement. Any candidate who does not eat bacon while submitting registration documents will not be registered.

Constitutional?

That's a good (evil) way to keep jews and muslims out of the whitehouse.
Those are eligibility requirements that go against the constitution. You know that. We are talking about disclosures not eligibility
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
38,454
Reaction score
5,888
Points
1,140
I ask because of this
Senate Democrats make democracy reform first bill of new majority (msn.com)
The bill, which is endorsed by a wide swath of progressive and civil rights groups, includes, among other things, changes to voter registration requirements, more funding for election security, requirements for presidents and vice presidents to disclose their tax returns and new ethics rules for members of Congress.
The Constitution lists the requirements to run for President and Congress changing them isnt mentioned.
GRANTED, the statists never care about the Constitution to begin with.. but still
Congress is the legislating body so as long as they don’t pass something that contradicts the limitations to power outlined in the constitution then that’s their job. So yes they can legally do this.
The Constitution does not give Congress the power to determine the qualifications for President, so it doesn't have that power. Simple, really.
I never said congress has the power to determine who is qualified to run. They can regulate the process though and of background checks and financial disclosures are part of the process then that’s totally within their power to manage
Where does the Constitution say that? Congress can regulate Congressional elections, and nothing else.
Article 1
which section?
8
Lol ok.... what part?
The last part
The bullshit part that you allege means Congress can do anything it wants?
I find it fascinating that after all this drama about fraudulent elections y’all turn around and fight against security measures for elections. Is it just because Dems are proposing it?

you know we already have financial disclosures that are part of running for president. Did y’all put up a fuss about those or is it just the tax return thing because of the Trump situation
Personally for me it is not about Trump and until Richard Nixon it was unheard of ( I think Romney dad did it before Nixon ) a candidate for President to disclose their tax returns...

Personally for me I believe it for the individual to divulge if they want and shouldn’t be forced...
Yeah I personally don’t give a shit about tax returns. It feels more political than anything, but I’m enjoying this debate
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
28,999
Reaction score
13,164
Points
1,100
Location
Tejas
I ask because of this
Senate Democrats make democracy reform first bill of new majority (msn.com)
The bill, which is endorsed by a wide swath of progressive and civil rights groups, includes, among other things, changes to voter registration requirements, more funding for election security, requirements for presidents and vice presidents to disclose their tax returns and new ethics rules for members of Congress.
The Constitution lists the requirements to run for President and Congress changing them isnt mentioned.
GRANTED, the statists never care about the Constitution to begin with.. but still
Congress is the legislating body so as long as they don’t pass something that contradicts the limitations to power outlined in the constitution then that’s their job. So yes they can legally do this.
The Constitution does not give Congress the power to determine the qualifications for President, so it doesn't have that power. Simple, really.
I never said congress has the power to determine who is qualified to run. They can regulate the process though and of background checks and financial disclosures are part of the process then that’s totally within their power to manage
Where does the Constitution say that? Congress can regulate Congressional elections, and nothing else.
Article 1
which section?
8
Lol ok.... what part?
The last part
Lol you arent very good at this.
I’m giving you direct answers to your questions. It’s the no spin zone
"last part" :lol:
Clause 18, the necessary and proper clause, gives congress the power to legislate to fulfill their duties outlines in clauses 1-17.
Please point out what enumerated power they have, where they can constitutionally add provisions to the requirements of being able to run for president.
I’ve already answered this. Congress isn’t changing the eligibility they are defining the process. The constitution defines who is eligible but does not specify the process to undertake to run the election. That is determined by the people. Our elected officials.
So, if a candidate refuses to turn over financials and submit to a background check, it is your opinion that said candidate is ineligible?

If a candidate did refuse, would that candidate still be allowed to take office if elected?

This is the problem with you "it's alive" people. You can spin anything to mean what you want it to, including the words "shall not be infringed" to mean "shall be infringed" and other such nonsense WITHOUT needing to be bothered by the amendment process.
The candidate would be eligible if they meet the criteria of the constitution. They would not be registered if they don’t follow the registration process.
So, your opinion is that we could set up a registration process that has requirements that would eliminate otherwise eligible candidates and that would be okay? Constitutional?
That would depend on what the process requires. Disclosures and security checks are quite different than making a requirement that the candidate serve in public office to run for prez or that a candidate must be a millionaire... stuff like that
I am not against disclosures and security checks, EXCEPT to the extent that they are, right now, unconstitutional.

Most people would be on board with an amendment to require those thing, but an amendment is required.
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
28,999
Reaction score
13,164
Points
1,100
Location
Tejas
Anyone who was born after the year 1980 will not be registered as a presidential candidate.

Constitutional?

It's the registration process. Not eligibility.

What about a "bacon" registration requirement. Any candidate who does not eat bacon while submitting registration documents will not be registered.

Constitutional?

That's a good (evil) way to keep jews and muslims out of the whitehouse.
Those are eligibility requirements that go against the constitution. You know that. We are talking about disclosures not eligibility
Disclosures are requisites. You are making a distinction where none exists.

Like I said, I am all for it, but let's do it the right way and amend.

Why does EVERYONE want to ignore the proper process?
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
38,454
Reaction score
5,888
Points
1,140
I find it fascinating that after all this drama about fraudulent elections y’all turn around and fight against security measures for elections. Is it just because Dems are proposing it?
Off topic and irrelevant to a presidential candidate's eligibility.
you know we already have financial disclosures that are part of running for president.
Unconstitutional if refusing is a bar to being eligible.

The General Welfare clause has been misinterpreted to disgusting degree and needs to be remedied.
My other comment was not irrelevant. Let me ask another way. Do you think the current financial disclosures that are required to run for president are illegal and if so have you spoken out against them or see any challenges by anybody to their constitutionality. Why or why not?
Like most unconstitutional bullshit, there is so much of it, it is hard for anyone to keep track, much less raise legal challenges.

I think we need to repeal all federal law and start over.

Does that answer your question?
It answers it in a round about way. Am I safe to assume the direct answers to my questions would be. Yes you object to the existing financial disclosures. And No you never took issue and never heard of anybody taking issue with the legality of it. Is that correct?
Correct but entirely irrelevant. Like I said, there is so much unconstitutional bullshit out there, it is impossible to police it all.

Most candidates don't object because it is politically expedient to not object. Still doesn't change the unconstitutionality of said restraints.
I agree but it does set a precedent of sorts and is a pretty good point, it’s ok to give me some credit :)
That no one has questioned it does set an expectation for the public. Yes.


But that should never be the basis for constitutional scrutiny.
That I’d agree with. It does warrant asking the questions how the regulation was passed and why nobody objected to an illegal regulation? Why was it never challenged in court? Why have you never said anything about it?
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
38,454
Reaction score
5,888
Points
1,140
I ask because of this
Senate Democrats make democracy reform first bill of new majority (msn.com)
The bill, which is endorsed by a wide swath of progressive and civil rights groups, includes, among other things, changes to voter registration requirements, more funding for election security, requirements for presidents and vice presidents to disclose their tax returns and new ethics rules for members of Congress.
The Constitution lists the requirements to run for President and Congress changing them isnt mentioned.
GRANTED, the statists never care about the Constitution to begin with.. but still
Congress is the legislating body so as long as they don’t pass something that contradicts the limitations to power outlined in the constitution then that’s their job. So yes they can legally do this.
The Constitution does not give Congress the power to determine the qualifications for President, so it doesn't have that power. Simple, really.
I never said congress has the power to determine who is qualified to run. They can regulate the process though and of background checks and financial disclosures are part of the process then that’s totally within their power to manage
Where does the Constitution say that? Congress can regulate Congressional elections, and nothing else.
Article 1
which section?
8
Lol ok.... what part?
The last part
Lol you arent very good at this.
I’m giving you direct answers to your questions. It’s the no spin zone
"last part" :lol:
Clause 18, the necessary and proper clause, gives congress the power to legislate to fulfill their duties outlines in clauses 1-17.
Please point out what enumerated power they have, where they can constitutionally add provisions to the requirements of being able to run for president.
I’ve already answered this. Congress isn’t changing the eligibility they are defining the process. The constitution defines who is eligible but does not specify the process to undertake to run the election. That is determined by the people. Our elected officials.
So, if a candidate refuses to turn over financials and submit to a background check, it is your opinion that said candidate is ineligible?

If a candidate did refuse, would that candidate still be allowed to take office if elected?

This is the problem with you "it's alive" people. You can spin anything to mean what you want it to, including the words "shall not be infringed" to mean "shall be infringed" and other such nonsense WITHOUT needing to be bothered by the amendment process.
The candidate would be eligible if they meet the criteria of the constitution. They would not be registered if they don’t follow the registration process.
So, your opinion is that we could set up a registration process that has requirements that would eliminate otherwise eligible candidates and that would be okay? Constitutional?
That would depend on what the process requires. Disclosures and security checks are quite different than making a requirement that the candidate serve in public office to run for prez or that a candidate must be a millionaire... stuff like that
I am not against disclosures and security checks, EXCEPT to the extent that they are, right now, unconstitutional.

Most people would be on board with an amendment to require those thing, but an amendment is required.
Fair enough. Good debate. I gotta go play golf now :)
 

Mad_Jack_Flint

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2020
Messages
2,973
Reaction score
2,135
Points
1,903
I ask because of this
Senate Democrats make democracy reform first bill of new majority (msn.com)
The bill, which is endorsed by a wide swath of progressive and civil rights groups, includes, among other things, changes to voter registration requirements, more funding for election security, requirements for presidents and vice presidents to disclose their tax returns and new ethics rules for members of Congress.
The Constitution lists the requirements to run for President and Congress changing them isnt mentioned.
GRANTED, the statists never care about the Constitution to begin with.. but still
Congress is the legislating body so as long as they don’t pass something that contradicts the limitations to power outlined in the constitution then that’s their job. So yes they can legally do this.
The Constitution does not give Congress the power to determine the qualifications for President, so it doesn't have that power. Simple, really.
I never said congress has the power to determine who is qualified to run. They can regulate the process though and of background checks and financial disclosures are part of the process then that’s totally within their power to manage
Where does the Constitution say that? Congress can regulate Congressional elections, and nothing else.
Article 1
which section?
8
Lol ok.... what part?
The last part
The bullshit part that you allege means Congress can do anything it wants?
I find it fascinating that after all this drama about fraudulent elections y’all turn around and fight against security measures for elections. Is it just because Dems are proposing it?

you know we already have financial disclosures that are part of running for president. Did y’all put up a fuss about those or is it just the tax return thing because of the Trump situation
Personally for me it is not about Trump and until Richard Nixon it was unheard of ( I think Romney dad did it before Nixon ) a candidate for President to disclose their tax returns...

Personally for me I believe it for the individual to divulge if they want and shouldn’t be forced...
Yeah I personally don’t give a shit about tax returns. It feels more political than anything, but I’m enjoying this debate
I firmly believe the Congress will have to pass an Amendment if they want the future Candidates to show their returns and I feel it will fail to be ratified by the States.

Also I am in the opinion when people realize how little taxes a billionaire pays those that do not understand the tax system will blame the billionaire and not the system.

So when a candidate like Trump, Bloomberg or even Romney run or ran for President the showing of the returns can be deceiving seeing so many loopholes are used and you need a CPA to explain the system to you...

So that is why I am somewhat against the idea and believe something like that is a political weapon that will be misused...
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
28,999
Reaction score
13,164
Points
1,100
Location
Tejas
Why was it never challenged in court?
Candidates have never challenged it.
Why have you never said anything about it?
It has never been on my top 10 list of unconstitutional shit to which I must object.

Not really being aware of the requirements is one thing. I have never attempted to run for president or even looked at the registration process/requirements.
:dunno:

Trump's jackassery has brought many things to light. You should be thankful.
:2up:
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
38,454
Reaction score
5,888
Points
1,140
I ask because of this
Senate Democrats make democracy reform first bill of new majority (msn.com)
The bill, which is endorsed by a wide swath of progressive and civil rights groups, includes, among other things, changes to voter registration requirements, more funding for election security, requirements for presidents and vice presidents to disclose their tax returns and new ethics rules for members of Congress.
The Constitution lists the requirements to run for President and Congress changing them isnt mentioned.
GRANTED, the statists never care about the Constitution to begin with.. but still
Congress is the legislating body so as long as they don’t pass something that contradicts the limitations to power outlined in the constitution then that’s their job. So yes they can legally do this.
The Constitution does not give Congress the power to determine the qualifications for President, so it doesn't have that power. Simple, really.
I never said congress has the power to determine who is qualified to run. They can regulate the process though and of background checks and financial disclosures are part of the process then that’s totally within their power to manage
Where does the Constitution say that? Congress can regulate Congressional elections, and nothing else.
Article 1
which section?
8
Lol ok.... what part?
The last part
The bullshit part that you allege means Congress can do anything it wants?
I find it fascinating that after all this drama about fraudulent elections y’all turn around and fight against security measures for elections. Is it just because Dems are proposing it?

you know we already have financial disclosures that are part of running for president. Did y’all put up a fuss about those or is it just the tax return thing because of the Trump situation
Personally for me it is not about Trump and until Richard Nixon it was unheard of ( I think Romney dad did it before Nixon ) a candidate for President to disclose their tax returns...

Personally for me I believe it for the individual to divulge if they want and shouldn’t be forced...
Yeah I personally don’t give a shit about tax returns. It feels more political than anything, but I’m enjoying this debate
I firmly believe the Congress will have to pass an Amendment if they want the future Candidates to show their returns and I feel it will fail to be ratified by the States.

Also I am in the opinion when people realize how little taxes a billionaire pays those that do not understand the tax system will blame the billionaire and not the system.

So when a candidate like Trump, Bloomberg or even Romney run or ran for President the showing of the returns can be deceiving seeing so many loopholes are used and you need a CPA to explain the system to you...

So that is why I am somewhat against the idea and believe something like that is a political weapon that will be misused...
I think there is some value to having that debate in the public forum to increase people’s understanding of how the tax system works. Maybe things need to be changed...
Question. Do you think there should be a movement to get rid of current disclosure regulations in our electoral process? Do you find those unconstitutional as well?
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
136,087
Reaction score
27,738
Points
2,180
I ask because of this
Senate Democrats make democracy reform first bill of new majority (msn.com)
The bill, which is endorsed by a wide swath of progressive and civil rights groups, includes, among other things, changes to voter registration requirements, more funding for election security, requirements for presidents and vice presidents to disclose their tax returns and new ethics rules for members of Congress.
The Constitution lists the requirements to run for President and Congress changing them isnt mentioned.
GRANTED, the statists never care about the Constitution to begin with.. but still
Congress is the legislating body so as long as they don’t pass something that contradicts the limitations to power outlined in the constitution then that’s their job. So yes they can legally do this.
The Constitution does not give Congress the power to determine the qualifications for President, so it doesn't have that power. Simple, really.
I never said congress has the power to determine who is qualified to run. They can regulate the process though and of background checks and financial disclosures are part of the process then that’s totally within their power to manage
Where does the Constitution say that? Congress can regulate Congressional elections, and nothing else.
Article 1
which section?
8
Lol ok.... what part?
The last part
The bullshit part that you allege means Congress can do anything it wants?
I find it fascinating that after all this drama about fraudulent elections y’all turn around and fight against security measures for elections. Is it just because Dems are proposing it?

you know we already have financial disclosures that are part of running for president. Did y’all put up a fuss about those or is it just the tax return thing because of the Trump situation
Do you recall when that NAZI douchebag mayor of Portland refused to allow Trump to send in the National Guard? Did you whine about that?

Do you ever have an opinion that isn't utterly hypocritical.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
136,087
Reaction score
27,738
Points
2,180
I ask because of this
Senate Democrats make democracy reform first bill of new majority (msn.com)
The bill, which is endorsed by a wide swath of progressive and civil rights groups, includes, among other things, changes to voter registration requirements, more funding for election security, requirements for presidents and vice presidents to disclose their tax returns and new ethics rules for members of Congress.
The Constitution lists the requirements to run for President and Congress changing them isnt mentioned.
GRANTED, the statists never care about the Constitution to begin with.. but still
Congress is the legislating body so as long as they don’t pass something that contradicts the limitations to power outlined in the constitution then that’s their job. So yes they can legally do this.
The Constitution does not give Congress the power to determine the qualifications for President, so it doesn't have that power. Simple, really.
I never said congress has the power to determine who is qualified to run. They can regulate the process though and of background checks and financial disclosures are part of the process then that’s totally within their power to manage
Where does the Constitution say that? Congress can regulate Congressional elections, and nothing else.
Article 1
which section?
8
Lol ok.... what part?
The last part
The bullshit part that you allege means Congress can do anything it wants?
I find it fascinating that after all this drama about fraudulent elections y’all turn around and fight against security measures for elections. Is it just because Dems are proposing it?

you know we already have financial disclosures that are part of running for president. Did y’all put up a fuss about those or is it just the tax return thing because of the Trump situation
Personally for me it is not about Trump and until Richard Nixon it was unheard of ( I think Romney dad did it before Nixon ) a candidate for President to disclose their tax returns...

Personally for me I believe it for the individual to divulge if they want and shouldn’t be forced...
Yeah I personally don’t give a shit about tax returns. It feels more political than anything, but I’m enjoying this debate
I firmly believe the Congress will have to pass an Amendment if they want the future Candidates to show their returns and I feel it will fail to be ratified by the States.

Also I am in the opinion when people realize how little taxes a billionaire pays those that do not understand the tax system will blame the billionaire and not the system.

So when a candidate like Trump, Bloomberg or even Romney run or ran for President the showing of the returns can be deceiving seeing so many loopholes are used and you need a CPA to explain the system to you...

So that is why I am somewhat against the idea and believe something like that is a political weapon that will be misused...
I think there is some value to having that debate in the public forum to increase people’s understanding of how the tax system works. Maybe things need to be changed...
Question. Do you think there should be a movement to get rid of current disclosure regulations in our electoral process? Do you find those unconstitutional as well?
People get a lesson in how the tax system works every April 15, NAZI.
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
38,454
Reaction score
5,888
Points
1,140
I ask because of this
Senate Democrats make democracy reform first bill of new majority (msn.com)
The bill, which is endorsed by a wide swath of progressive and civil rights groups, includes, among other things, changes to voter registration requirements, more funding for election security, requirements for presidents and vice presidents to disclose their tax returns and new ethics rules for members of Congress.
The Constitution lists the requirements to run for President and Congress changing them isnt mentioned.
GRANTED, the statists never care about the Constitution to begin with.. but still
Congress is the legislating body so as long as they don’t pass something that contradicts the limitations to power outlined in the constitution then that’s their job. So yes they can legally do this.
The Constitution does not give Congress the power to determine the qualifications for President, so it doesn't have that power. Simple, really.
I never said congress has the power to determine who is qualified to run. They can regulate the process though and of background checks and financial disclosures are part of the process then that’s totally within their power to manage
Where does the Constitution say that? Congress can regulate Congressional elections, and nothing else.
Article 1
which section?
8
Lol ok.... what part?
The last part
The bullshit part that you allege means Congress can do anything it wants?
I find it fascinating that after all this drama about fraudulent elections y’all turn around and fight against security measures for elections. Is it just because Dems are proposing it?

you know we already have financial disclosures that are part of running for president. Did y’all put up a fuss about those or is it just the tax return thing because of the Trump situation
Do you recall when that NAZI douchebag mayor of Portland refused to allow Trump to send in the National Guard? Did you whine about that?

Do you ever have an opinion that isn't utterly hypocritical.
So a Nazi was limiting the power of the government. Interesting. Do you see the problem with your statement?
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
38,454
Reaction score
5,888
Points
1,140
I ask because of this
Senate Democrats make democracy reform first bill of new majority (msn.com)
The bill, which is endorsed by a wide swath of progressive and civil rights groups, includes, among other things, changes to voter registration requirements, more funding for election security, requirements for presidents and vice presidents to disclose their tax returns and new ethics rules for members of Congress.
The Constitution lists the requirements to run for President and Congress changing them isnt mentioned.
GRANTED, the statists never care about the Constitution to begin with.. but still
Congress is the legislating body so as long as they don’t pass something that contradicts the limitations to power outlined in the constitution then that’s their job. So yes they can legally do this.
The Constitution does not give Congress the power to determine the qualifications for President, so it doesn't have that power. Simple, really.
I never said congress has the power to determine who is qualified to run. They can regulate the process though and of background checks and financial disclosures are part of the process then that’s totally within their power to manage
Where does the Constitution say that? Congress can regulate Congressional elections, and nothing else.
Article 1
which section?
8
Lol ok.... what part?
The last part
The bullshit part that you allege means Congress can do anything it wants?
I find it fascinating that after all this drama about fraudulent elections y’all turn around and fight against security measures for elections. Is it just because Dems are proposing it?

you know we already have financial disclosures that are part of running for president. Did y’all put up a fuss about those or is it just the tax return thing because of the Trump situation
Personally for me it is not about Trump and until Richard Nixon it was unheard of ( I think Romney dad did it before Nixon ) a candidate for President to disclose their tax returns...

Personally for me I believe it for the individual to divulge if they want and shouldn’t be forced...
Yeah I personally don’t give a shit about tax returns. It feels more political than anything, but I’m enjoying this debate
I firmly believe the Congress will have to pass an Amendment if they want the future Candidates to show their returns and I feel it will fail to be ratified by the States.

Also I am in the opinion when people realize how little taxes a billionaire pays those that do not understand the tax system will blame the billionaire and not the system.

So when a candidate like Trump, Bloomberg or even Romney run or ran for President the showing of the returns can be deceiving seeing so many loopholes are used and you need a CPA to explain the system to you...

So that is why I am somewhat against the idea and believe something like that is a political weapon that will be misused...
I think there is some value to having that debate in the public forum to increase people’s understanding of how the tax system works. Maybe things need to be changed...
Question. Do you think there should be a movement to get rid of current disclosure regulations in our electoral process? Do you find those unconstitutional as well?
People get a lesson in how the tax system works every April 15, NAZI.
Oh, good one... jackass
 
OP
TNHarley

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
70,918
Reaction score
17,511
Points
2,180
I ask because of this
Senate Democrats make democracy reform first bill of new majority (msn.com)
The bill, which is endorsed by a wide swath of progressive and civil rights groups, includes, among other things, changes to voter registration requirements, more funding for election security, requirements for presidents and vice presidents to disclose their tax returns and new ethics rules for members of Congress.
The Constitution lists the requirements to run for President and Congress changing them isnt mentioned.
GRANTED, the statists never care about the Constitution to begin with.. but still
Congress is the legislating body so as long as they don’t pass something that contradicts the limitations to power outlined in the constitution then that’s their job. So yes they can legally do this.
The Constitution does not give Congress the power to determine the qualifications for President, so it doesn't have that power. Simple, really.
I never said congress has the power to determine who is qualified to run. They can regulate the process though and of background checks and financial disclosures are part of the process then that’s totally within their power to manage
Where does the Constitution say that? Congress can regulate Congressional elections, and nothing else.
Article 1
which section?
8
Lol ok.... what part?
The last part
Lol you arent very good at this.
I’m giving you direct answers to your questions. It’s the no spin zone
"last part" :lol:
Clause 18, the necessary and proper clause, gives congress the power to legislate to fulfill their duties outlines in clauses 1-17.
Please point out what enumerated power they have, where they can constitutionally add provisions to the requirements of being able to run for president.
I’ve already answered this. Congress isn’t changing the eligibility they are defining the process. The constitution defines who is eligible but does not specify the process to undertake to run the election. That is determined by the people. Our elected officials.
And the subject of this thread is congress adding additional requirements. Requirements that arent outlined in the Constitution.
Do you understand now?
I’ve understood the entire time. Are you now moving from debate to petty insults?
It doesnt seem you have.
I didnt insult you.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top