Democrats move to take Trump off the ballot

[candycorn]

Where does the Constitution lay out the requirement for collecting a certain number of signatures to be on a state ballot?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

And signatures violate privacy laws, HOW?

.

I was responding to this part of your post....It also adds a requirement for office that is not supported by the Constitution.

Is the requirement for collecting a certain number of signatures supported by the Constitution?

Are signatures required for major party candidates? It only applies to independent candidates in TX.

.

Regardless, it would be a pristine example of a state utilizing it's discretion on who gets on the ballot.

My God, the stupid is strong in you!

States cannot make a requirement that is not in the Constitution. When will you STFU and understand what you have been repeatedly told and shown?

OKTexas says Texas makes independent candidates get a number of signatures. Your argument is with him ass-pirate.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

And signatures violate privacy laws, HOW?

.

I was responding to this part of your post....It also adds a requirement for office that is not supported by the Constitution.

Is the requirement for collecting a certain number of signatures supported by the Constitution?

Are signatures required for major party candidates? It only applies to independent candidates in TX.

.

Regardless, it would be a pristine example of a state utilizing it's discretion on who gets on the ballot.

My God, the stupid is strong in you!

States cannot make a requirement that is not in the Constitution. When will you STFU and understand what you have been repeatedly told and shown?

OKTexas says Texas makes independent candidates get a number of signatures. Your argument is with him ass-pirate.

That's because major party candidates are qualified by the number of votes received in previous elections, dumbass!

You are such an insignificant piece of human waste. You should crawl back under the nearest rock from which you slithered.

 

[NoVote]

All we hear from democrats are accusations that the GOP are tying to suppress the vote in a myriad of ways

Funny, I never heard one Republican suggest that the democrat nominee should be taken off the ballot.

The reason republicans never suggest it is because we know it's illegal. The leftard meat puppets come up with this kind of rot because, well, they're meat puppets.

 

[candycorn]

I was responding to this part of your post....It also adds a requirement for office that is not supported by the Constitution.

Is the requirement for collecting a certain number of signatures supported by the Constitution?

Are signatures required for major party candidates? It only applies to independent candidates in TX.

.

Regardless, it would be a pristine example of a state utilizing it's discretion on who gets on the ballot.

My God, the stupid is strong in you!

States cannot make a requirement that is not in the Constitution. When will you STFU and understand what you have been repeatedly told and shown?

OKTexas says Texas makes independent candidates get a number of signatures. Your argument is with him ass-pirate.

That's because major party candidates are qualified by the number of votes received in previous elections, dumbass!

You are such an insignificant piece of human waste. You should crawl back under the nearest rock from which you slithered.

Poor ass pirate...your homosexuality has confused you. You're stating now that states can make laws to create barriers to get on the ballot... Having tax returns as a barrier is perfectly legal...according to your gay ass.

 

[Seawytch]

All candidates have to provide them, not just Republican candidates, making it apolitical. Candidates filing for office already provide other financial documents, these would simply be in addition to those. Private, personal, information can be redacted.

To what purpose are you going to put people who want to serve into legal jeopardy from political hacks such as yourself?

In order for a law like this to be Constitutional, it would have to first prove that there is a pattern in the entire system of corruption that could be quelled if the information is released. In other words, there must be a reasonable reason to violate the rights of the citizens. I don't like him is NOT a reasonable standard.

It isn't even a law now, and already the concept of it is being abused by political hacks.

Candidates already file financial paperwork that is public information...and we manage to redact all the private information before it is made public. Tax returns would be treated no differently, but THIS particular change to rules has to be made at the Federal level....and it will be in the future, you can bank on it.

How will we know? Are you going to make bank records public also?

Are you obtuse, stupid or trying (and failing) to make a joke?

You didn't get the meaning because YOU are too stupid to understand it!

I highlighted your comment with red text. Then I mentioned bank records. If I can bank on it, how would you know unless you had access to my bank records!

Dumbass!

So you were stupidly making an obtuse joke. It bombed.

 

[candycorn]

All we hear from democrats are accusations that the GOP are tying to suppress the vote in a myriad of ways

Funny, I never heard one Republican suggest that the democrat nominee should be taken off the ballot.

The reason republicans never suggest it is because we know it's illegal. The leftard meat puppets come up with this kind of rot because, well, they're meat puppets.

Strange...Republicans were for all sorts of new rules back when Obama was President.

Breaking News and Confirmed: Arizona Senate Passes Presidential Eligibility Bill 21-9

 

[MeBelle]

States move to require all presidential candidates to release taxes

All we hear from democrats are accusations that the GOP are tying to suppress the vote in a myriad of ways

Funny, I never heard one Republican suggest that the democrat nominee should be taken off the ballot.

That dear friends is called fascism. .

The reason CA is so screwed up is because the Democrat Party has no competition.
They've practically erased Republicans from the state.

Almost 5 million people voted Repub in Cali last election...does not really seem to be erased.

30% of the legal vote amounts to ZERO in Cali.

 

[MeBelle]

States move to require all presidential candidates to release taxes

All we hear from democrats are accusations that the GOP are tying to suppress the vote in a myriad of ways

Funny, I never heard one Republican suggest that the democrat nominee should be taken off the ballot.

That dear friends is called fascism. .

Forcing someone to release their tax returns is ILLEGAL.

Let the TDS states sue all they want...they're just wasting taxpayer dollars.
Read your Constitution, man!

 

[The2ndAmendment]

lol

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Shouldn't States be able to write their own rules?

Not if it's a clear violation of the laws regarding privacy on tax returns. It also adds a requirement for office that is not supported by the Constitution. The courts won't allow such laws to stand.

.

Where does the Constitution lay out the requirement for collecting a certain number of signatures to be on a state ballot?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

And signatures violate privacy laws, HOW?

.

I was responding to this part of your post....It also adds a requirement for office that is not supported by the Constitution.

Is the requirement for collecting a certain number of signatures supported by the Constitution?

Are signatures required for major party candidates? It only applies to independent candidates in TX.

.

Does that some how make it better? Does the Constitution support the idea of different tiers of candidates?

And I am not even saying that the requirement for collecting a certain number of signatures is wrong, just that no where will you find it supported by the Constitution, so claiming that this is not supported by the Constitution seems a weak argument against it.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Where does the Constitution lay out the requirement for collecting a certain number of signatures to be on a state ballot?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

And signatures violate privacy laws, HOW?

.

I was responding to this part of your post....It also adds a requirement for office that is not supported by the Constitution.

Is the requirement for collecting a certain number of signatures supported by the Constitution?

Are signatures required for major party candidates? It only applies to independent candidates in TX.

.

Regardless, it would be a pristine example of a state utilizing it's discretion on who gets on the ballot.

My God, the stupid is strong in you!

States cannot make a requirement that is not in the Constitution. When will you STFU and understand what you have been repeatedly told and shown?

Please show me in the Constitution the requirement for collecting a certain number of signatures as ever state requires to be on the ballot.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

States move to require all presidential candidates to release taxes

All we hear from democrats are accusations that the GOP are tying to suppress the vote in a myriad of ways

Funny, I never heard one Republican suggest that the democrat nominee should be taken off the ballot.

That dear friends is called fascism. .

Forcing someone to release their tax returns is ILLEGAL.

Let the TDS states sue all they want...they're just wasting taxpayer dollars.
Read your Constitution, man!

Nobody is being forced to do anything.

 

[candycorn]

Golfing Gator All good points. All will be met with personal attacks and a "just cuz...." response. Watch.

 

[basquebromance]

Donald Trump is the most corrupt criminal president in the history of the world, & Congress should impeach him & kick him out of the White House!

 

[LoneLaugher]

States move to require all presidential candidates to release taxes

All we hear from democrats are accusations that the GOP are tying to suppress the vote in a myriad of ways

Funny, I never heard one Republican suggest that the democrat nominee should be taken off the ballot.

That dear friends is called fascism. .

Nope. This is not taking anyone off the ballot. It is setting guidelines regarding requirements to get on the ballot. Trump could easily meet this requirement.

You can still vote for him. Write in his name. Your vote is not being suppressed.

 

[Mac1958]

It's always "okay" when "my" tribe does it.

The decay continues.

 

[iceberg]

Golfing Gator All good points. All will be met with personal attacks and a "just cuz...." response. Watch.

hey, it's also a good point that taxes are not a requirement, stop asking for them but let me know if those attacks are personal at this point, or still "best interest of the country" as billed.

 

[candycorn]

Golfing Gator All good points. All will be met with personal attacks and a "just cuz...." response. Watch.

hey, it's also a good point that taxes are not a requirement, stop asking for them but let me know if those attacks are personal at this point, or still "best interest of the country" as billed.

Of course that isn't the subject. The subject is whether or not the states can craft their own rules for candidates to get on a ballot. Nice try at moving the goal posts though.

 

[rightwinger]

States move to require all presidential candidates to release taxes

All we hear from democrats are accusations that the GOP are tying to suppress the vote in a myriad of ways

Funny, I never heard one Republican suggest that the democrat nominee should be taken off the ballot.

That dear friends is called fascism. .

Forcing someone to release their tax returns is ILLEGAL.

Let the TDS states sue all they want...they're just wasting taxpayer dollars.
Read your Constitution, man!

Show me the law

 

[iceberg]

Golfing Gator All good points. All will be met with personal attacks and a "just cuz...." response. Watch.

hey, it's also a good point that taxes are not a requirement, stop asking for them but let me know if those attacks are personal at this point, or still "best interest of the country" as billed.

Of course that isn't the subject. The subject is whether or not the states can craft their own rules for candidates to get on a ballot. Nice try at moving the goal posts though.

was not intentional - my bad on that one. its just the crux of this entire argument to date has been focused on trump must turn them over when there is no legal requirement for him to do so. how him following the law and procedures made him a "bad man" i've yet to figure out.

that said - we seem to have finally come to a point where the left realizes it's futile so we move to phase 2 where we now try to change the laws for the future to get what we want today. you and i both seem to feel, if i remember correctly, this is a bad idea and sets a bad precedence. so thank you - i'll shift to the topic as again - trying to move things around wasn't my goal.

presidential requirements from wiki:
Presidential eligibility[edit]
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution sets three qualifications for holding the presidency. To serve as president, one must:

• be a natural-born U.S. citizen of the United States;
• be at least thirty-five years old;
• be a resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.[1]

A person who meets the above qualifications would, however, still be disqualified from holding the office of president under any of the following conditions:

• Under the Twenty-second Amendment, no person can be elected president more than twice. The amendment also specifies that if any eligible person serves as president or acting president for more than two years of a term for which some other eligible person was elected president, the former can only be elected president once.[2][3]
• Under Article I, Section 3, Clause 7, upon conviction in impeachment cases, the Senate has the option of disqualifying convicted individuals from holding federal office, including that of president.[4]
• Under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, no person who swore an oath to support the Constitution, and later rebelled against the United States, can become president. However, this disqualification can be lifted by a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress.[5]

a bulk of what i see in wiki is addressing the states making a similar run on obama after the birther crap got insanely stupid. states trying to ensure this requirement is in fact met. while stupid, it is there to reinforce and existing requirement, not bring in new ones.

it would appear these fall to ballot access laws which are governed by the state. so while it would appear that a state "could" do whatever they wanted to do, it would also seem at first glance they would have a difficult time in doing so because their requirements to be on the ballot are more stringent than required to be President.

i would think these attempts at the states to change our voting procedure because they hate trump will ultimately fail because they are superceding authority they have no control over on the federal level.

but as we talk and i do more research, that opinion could change but that's how i see it for now.

in any event - it's all stupid and driven by a "we lost and hate it" attitude, not to better the country or process.