Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Thursday, March 21, 2019

Trump Omitted From The 2020 Ballot?

[source]

From Trump could be left off some states’ ballots in 2020 if these bills become law (Washington Post, March 20, 2019, emphases mine):
In refusing to release his tax returns, President Trump bucked decades of tradition and set off a Democrat hunt to obtain them. Now several statehouses are looking at making their release a condition of the 2020 presidential election: Show us your tax returns, or you can’t be on the ballot.

Eighteen states have considered legislation this year that would require presidential and vice presidential candidates to post their tax returns to appear on the ballot during a primary or general election, according to data from the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL).

Proponents of the bills, such as the one passed by the Washington state Senate this week, say they are aimed at increasing transparency and returning to the “norm” of candidates releasing their financial records. But Democratic lawmakers behind the some of the legislation have admitted they are also very much about Trump, which raises legal and political questions about how far states can — or should — go in regulating who appears on their ballot, especially in a hyperpartisan climate.

In addition to Washington, several other states, including California, Hawaii and New Jersey are considering similar bills....

[...]

...[N]ot all politicians think this kind of legislation is a good idea. In 2017, then-New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie vetoed one bill that made it to his desk, calling it “politics at its worst.” Former California governor Jerry Brown, a Democrat, did the same when California’s legislature passed similar measure.

“First, it may not be constitutional,” Brown wrote in his decision. “Second, it sets a ‘slippery slope’ precedent. Today we require tax returns, but what would be next? Five years of health records? A certified birth certificate? High school report cards? And will these requirements vary depending on which political party is in power?”...
Read the rest HERE.

The phrase by hook or by crook comes to mind. So does the word unhinged.

Related? Elizabeth Warren wants to kill the electoral college.

39 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think that we need to require all future ballot choices to swear allegiance to the Republican Party for a place on the ballot.

    ReplyDelete
  3. FYI: I had another post published today, but have pulled it back into draft form. That post will be published at a later date—along with the comments thereto.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Franco,
      No worries. Your comments will appear when I re-publish next week.

      Delete
  4. Democrats are anti-constitutional terrorists, continually probing the boundaries, looking for weaknesses to exploit, and conducting innocuous-looking dry-runs in preparation for their next devastating attack upon our nation's anti-tyranny bulwark.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You obviously had a nice nap from 2009 til 2017.

      Delete
    2. Why? Could I possibly peak your interest into seeing something you refuse to? Kinda doubt it.

      Delete
    3. That's what I thought. You're either too dumb or too indoctrinated to substantiate your comment.

      BTW, it's "pique" one's interest.

      Delete
    4. Okay so you cannot scan your demeaning diatribe of Democrats and come up with anything remotely hypocritical of GOP governance of the Obama years. If that's not the case, why did you ask for elaboration?

      Then, from your own admission you say my response is unlikely due to my lack of intelligence or that I'm somewhat brainwashed ideologically. So, uh, again, why did you ask?

      Could it be that your very own glazed over ideological state forbids you to acknowledging anything counter to your Democrat hating agenda?

      Delete
    5. This post presents one more constitutionally-dubious crackpot Democrat gambit. It also presents a related topic of the totalitarian left's ongoing assault on the Electoral College. That is the subject at hand.

      I could expound. The Democrat attack on the 1st and 2nd Amendments has been widely reported. FYI, those amendments are part of the constitution.

      Barack Obama got his Multi-billion dollar lifeline to Iran's Terror Mullahs through by having Democrats (and willing quisling Republicans) couch it as a post-hoc vote on a fait accompli, instead of going through the treaty ratification process.

      Go Yahoogle "United States House of Representatives v. Azar" and see how Obama got his big ears slapped back for raiding the US Treasury for Obamacare funds without a congressional appropriation. Clearly unconstitutional.

      Over to you.

      Delete
    6. I find it above amazing that you actually want to call foul on House v Azar when today's so-called conservatives are fine with bypassing the House and give the power of the purse to Trump? Seriously?

      In the real world, Obama was more 2nd Adm friendly than Trump and Trump has made several comments that should alarm the most avid Trump licker. But, Trump could toss hand grenades into maternity wards and they'd still bow to him and blame Dems. But yes, Fox News et al has done considerable reporting, as well as lack of, both at their discretion. To be honest if you can, I think the real fight on taking guns fizzled when GWB was appointed over Gore. And I kinda doubt those founding fathers intended freedom of speech meant big bucks to have a mega horn and drown out the little guy.

      I'm not a fan of changing the 12th and simply because a few Dems advocate it doesn't mean they can.

      How about that last Obama SCOTUS pick? Oh wait, Rs said he couldn't have one.


      Delete
    7. Drowning in your cloud of blather, I detect two issues you proffer: President Trump's Emergency Declaration, and the GOP refusing to hold hearings for Judge Garland.

      Both legal actions within the constitution. We have a law on the books allowing a president to declare a national emergency.

      In the case of Garland, the GOP refused to hold hearings, and that is not a violation of the constitution.


      It is also not unprecedented.

      https://www.quora.com/How-many-nominations-for-Supreme-Court-justices-have-been-denied-a-Senate-hearing

      https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/senate-obama-merrick-garland-supreme-court-nominee/482733/

      I hope this comment has cleared up some of your constitutional confusion.

      Delete
    8. Your links fall short of any sitting president being flat out denied a nominee consideration simply because he's the president. That may not necessarily breach the Constitution but it was certainly a snubbing of its intent. Can't prove it but I'd wager folks like you will be fit throwing in the event of a dem court packing which is, within the Constitution.

      As for Trump overriding the Lower Chamber's power of the purse, not sure how you arrive to your conclusion. And if it holds up, where will you be should a Dem president declare emergency action over people being gunned down or dying because of a lack of insurance? Even most Rs oppose Trump on this one and want to correct it yet somehow say just this one time is okay. Is that a constitutional rationale?

      But again, what's this talk of "continually probing the boundaries", "looking for weaknesses to exploit", and other accusations of Dems you speak of? And where have you been for the past few decades to make these claims without being an abject hypocrite?

      Delete
    9. @ AJ Jones:
      Do you lack basic comprehension skills?

      To paraphrase Silver; You got nothing except "Progressive" talking points and empty rhetoric.

      Go away before I ban you! You're a waste of time and band width.

      Delete
    10. You're no more than the usual cowardly Fox News indoctrinated trump licking coward, bashing your opponent while asskissing your plutocratic dictator. You are the problem and frankly, I'd be honored to be no part of your bigoted hate fest.

      Delete
    11. Kiss my ass, shit for brains. After all, that's what you fascist progs do best, that is, kiss each others asses and virtue signal.
      Consider yourself banned.

      Delete
    12. I love it when Warren gets involved...

      Delete
    13. Just taking out the trash.
      I hate it when they don't know how stupid they are.

      Delete
    14. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    15. ...especially when the questioner's emotions invariably exceed their logical comprehension abilities.

      Delete
  5. This goes hand-in-hand with their efforts to overturn the Electoral College result by mandating that all State Delegates to the College cast their ballots for the national popular vote winner instead of the State winner. Why a State would cede it's 9th and 10th Amendment Rights is beyond me.... but over 33% have already done so.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The graphic "The Clinton Archipelago" -- from Z's blog this morning.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You already have the advantage in the Senate where a group o say ten states with a population less than NYC hold a 20 percent to 5 advantage, why should that advantage extend to the presidency?
      Reducing a serious question to a misleading graphic says nothing of value.

      Delete
    2. Because the US Constitution, triggered boy.

      Delete
    3. If I remember from civics class there is a legal method to modify the Constitution.
      The question is why that shouldn't be done in this case.

      Delete
    4. @ Ducky:
      The real question is; Why isn't a effort made by the proponents of such rubbish to modify the Constitution?
      The answer is quite obvious to anyone that has been paying attention.

      Delete
    5. Totalitarian progs like Ducky are always whining about how unfair and illegitimate the US Constitution is, but they are totally uninterested in the legal methods to amend it.

      Delete
  7. Well Ok, lets also require complete school records, birth records (real ones) Provable statements of accomplishments, social media history, etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wouldn't you love to see the Orange Man's school records?

      Delete
    2. I'm still waiting to see Obama's.
      Why would I care to see Trump's?

      Delete
  8. Whatever the requirements decided, include all who run for Senate and House must do the same and that will end that thought.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The Democrats are so desperate to get President Trump out of the way of their dubious agendas that they are willing to set precedents, as they might well have done during the Kavanaugh confirmation debacle, that could come back on them as soon as a single election later.

    Dumb, even for desperate people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seth? The Seth that I know from that bloggers' party way back when?

      Delete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective

!--BLOCKING--