Re: Tom Steyer Releases 10 Years of Tax Returns
Posted by:
President Trump FTW!
()
Date: November 19, 2019 06:43PM
More drivel from alphabet soup Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jdfsghfrgh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Same old shit from Trumpers Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Here we go again with the taxes Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Please show us where in the Constitution
> it's
> > a
> > > > requirement to show tax returns for one to
> be
> > > > eligible for President.
> > >
> > >
> > > Show me where in the Constitution it says
> that
> > > states cannot condition placing a
> presidential
> > > candidate's name on the ballot on the
> candidate
> > > releasing his returns. In fact the
> > Constitution
> > > has no requirements for who can be on the
> > ballot
> > > because the framers didn't want to compel
> > states
> > > to select electors based on popular vote.
> >
> >
> > States cannot override the US Constitutional
> > requirements for presidency. Don't be dumb.
> They
> > already tried it. The Supreme Court bent them
> over
> > and went in raw.
>
>
> Bullshit. States can and do impose conditions for
> being on the presidential ballot. Walk int the
> Board of Elections office and ask to be on the
> ballot for president and you will be laughed out
> of the building. Go to complain to the judge that
> they won't put you on the ballot for president and
> you will be laughed out of the courthouse. Now if
> you walk in with a major party nomination, the
> proper number of authenticated signatures or
> whatever other condition the state imposes and its
> a different story. Yet nowhere in the
> Constitution does it say a president must have a
> major party endorsement or a number of
> signatures.
>
> A judge ruling that a state could not impose a
> condition for being on the ballot not found in the
> Constitution is not following the text of the
> Constitution and established judicial precedent.
> He's making a ruling based on what he wants the
> result to be. What is that phrase conservatives
> like to use for those rulings. Oh yeah, JUDICIAL
> ACTIVISM. The Constitution imposes conditions on
> who can be president. It doesn't say who can be
> on the ballot. If a state decided to put Ahnold's
> name on the ballot there is no Constitutional
> prohibition, even though Mr. Schwarzenegger could
> not Constitutionally serve.
>
> As a policy matter I agree Trump should not be
> barred from being on the ballot because he won't
> release his returns. If California can do that,
> what prevents Alabama from having a rule that only
> candidates who sign a pledge to end legal abortion
> to be on the ballot. That is a policy based
> reason though, not a Constitutional one.
There is nothing more stupid than a libtard. States do not set the requirements for presidential elections. There is nothing in the constitution that grants the states the permission to do so.
I'd just love to see it happen. The supreme court enforces our laws now, the anti American activists are outnumbered by Americans.