Trump's tax returns required under new California election law

[Jimmy Snacks]

24 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

Sweet fuck!  All night long to come up with something and this was it?  You called me an "idiot' after my post, I asked you to make you counterpoint to my claim and you come back today and say, "No you!"  HOW EDGY!!!!

You are a fucking moron.  I don't know why i'd explain something so basic to you, then..all you'd do is pot, "Blah, blah, blah..blather...blah"You are an ignorant twat.  Go cry Jimmy Pouts!  Go cry.  Boo hoo.

 

So in other words you threw out “usurps democracy” and the 12th Amendment and figured that will show ‘em and the expect me to counter your vague asinine assertion....SMH. 

Says this loudly at parties, people walk away, Zderp thinks he won the argument. 

Edited July 31, 2019 by Jimmy Snacks

[Zambroski]

Just now, Jimmy Snacks said:

So in other words you threw out “usurps democracy” and the 12th Amendment and figured that will show ‘em and the expect me to counter your vague asinine assertion....SMH. 

I didn't "throw it out".  Unlike you and your band of crybaby idiots, I know exactly what I am saying.  So, I made a post, you called me an "idiot" I asked you to explain...and nothing.  Now, MOTOFraud just said the "burden of proof lies with the accuser" so, you called me an "idiot". Explain you rationale. 

Or, we can just throw shit at eachother.  How is this decision working out for you?  Can you afford to exile yourself from this forum also?  Dave bothered you...LOL....I'll run your weak ass ragged on here.  

 

[snoughnut]

7 minutes ago, Jimmy Snacks said:

So in other words you threw out “usurps democracy” and the 12th Amendment and figured that will show ‘em and the expect me to counter your vague asinine assertion....SMH. 

Says this loudly at parties, people walk away, Zderp thinks he won the argument. 

 

3 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

I didn't "throw it out".  Unlike you and your band of crybaby idiots, I know exactly what I am saying.  So, I made a post, you called me an "idiot" I asked you to explain...and nothing.  Now, MOTOFraud just said the "burden of proof lies with the accuser" so, you called me an "idiot". Explain you rationale. 

Or, we can just throw shit at eachother.  How is this decision working out for you?  Can you afford to exile yourself from this forum also?  Dave bothered you...LOL....I'll run your weak ass ragged on here.  

 

You 2 clowns need to take a break from this place, you have more posts than the Post Office. 

[Zambroski]

3 minutes ago, snoughnut said:

 

You 2 clowns need to take a break from this place, you have more posts than the Post Office. 

[SmeeAgain]

And they don't think you need to show your ID to vote.  Pathetic fuckers. 

[Kivalo]

5 hours ago, Zambroski said:

I didn't "throw it out".  Unlike you and your band of crybaby idiots, I know exactly what I am saying.  So, I made a post, you called me an "idiot" I asked you to explain...and nothing.  Now, MOTOFraud just said the "burden of proof lies with the accuser" so, you called me an "idiot". Explain you rationale. 

Or, we can just throw shit at eachother.  How is this decision working out for you?  Can you afford to exile yourself from this forum also?  Dave bothered you...LOL....I'll run your weak ass ragged on here.  

 

How does this usurp democracy?

[Jimmy Snacks]

18 minutes ago, Kivalo said:

How does this usurp democracy?

Simple question he can’t answer.

[Jimmy Snacks]

5 hours ago, Zambroski said:

I didn't "throw it out".  Unlike you and your band of crybaby idiots, I know exactly what I am saying.  So, I made a post, you called me an "idiot" I asked you to explain...and nothing.  Now, MOTOFraud just said the "burden of proof lies with the accuser" so, you called me an "idiot". Explain you rationale. 

Or, we can just throw shit at eachother.  How is this decision working out for you?  Can you afford to exile yourself from this forum also?  Dave bothered you...LOL....I'll run your weak ass ragged on here.  

 

Blah, blah....you ain’t running anybody anywhere you fucking mullet headed shit bird.

[Mainecat]

1 hour ago, Jimmy Snacks said:

Blah, blah....you ain’t running anybody anywhere you fucking mullet headed shit bird.

What a mook.

[hayward]

7 hours ago, snoughnut said:

 

You 2 clowns need to take a break from this place, you have more posts than the Post Office. 

I tried splaining that, and all I got was a PM.   I give up.  Just do as I and sit back and enjoy the entertainment. 

[hayward]

so Cali wants Trumps tax returns, but still no voter I.D., or did I miss that somewhere along the line?  

[Highmark]

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 5

 

The Constitution imposes three eligibility requirements on the Presidency—based on the officeholder's age, residency, and citizenship—that must be satisfied at the time of taking office. By virtue of the Twelfth Amendment, the qualifications for Vice President are the same. The Framers established these qualifications in order to increase the chances of electing a person of patriotism, judgment, and civic virtue.

First, Presidents must be thirty-five years of age or older. In contrast, Senators must be at least thirty years old, and Representatives no less than twenty-five years old. As Justice Joseph Story has noted, the "character and talent" of a man in the middle age of life is "fully developed," and he has had the opportunity "for public service and for experience in the public councils."

Second, the President must have been a "Resident" of the United States for fourteen years. By contrast, to be a Member of Congress, one must be an "Inhabitant" of the State one is representing. During the Constitutional Convention, James Madison contended that "both [terms] were vague, but the latter [‘Inhabitant'] least so in common acceptation, and would not exclude persons absent occasionally for a considerable time on public or private business." Then as now, inhabitant meant being a legal domiciliary, but resident could mean either a domiciliary or a physical presence. Perhaps the Framers desired a person as President who had actually been present in the United States for the required period and had developed an attachment to and understanding of the country, rather than one who was legally an inhabitant, but who may have lived abroad for most of his life. On the other hand, the distinction may have been one of style rather than substance. As Justice Story later noted, "by ‘residence,' in the constitution, is to be understood, not an absolute inhabitancy within the United States during the whole period; but such an inhabitancy, as includes a permanent domicil in the United States."

 

https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/82/presidential-eligibility

 

States cannot impose laws that are outside the boundaries of the constitution.  In other words states cannot have different requirements.   This should get shot down at the first legal test.  Nice try California.    

Think about this, could a state say they cannot be on the ballot unless they once resided in their own state?  Nope.  

What's even more hilarious is people who think there is some smoking gun in his returns.    Sorry folks it would have been leaked.  

Can a state force a candidate to submit to a drug test?   While it would seem like a valid request no different than tax returns its not a requirement plain and simple.  

Edited July 31, 2019 by Highmark

[Mainecat]

7 minutes ago, Highmark said:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 5

 

The Constitution imposes three eligibility requirements on the Presidency—based on the officeholder's age, residency, and citizenship—that must be satisfied at the time of taking office. By virtue of the Twelfth Amendment, the qualifications for Vice President are the same. The Framers established these qualifications in order to increase the chances of electing a person of patriotism, judgment, and civic virtue.

First, Presidents must be thirty-five years of age or older. In contrast, Senators must be at least thirty years old, and Representatives no less than twenty-five years old. As Justice Joseph Story has noted, the "character and talent" of a man in the middle age of life is "fully developed," and he has had the opportunity "for public service and for experience in the public councils."

Second, the President must have been a "Resident" of the United States for fourteen years. By contrast, to be a Member of Congress, one must be an "Inhabitant" of the State one is representing. During the Constitutional Convention, James Madison contended that "both [terms] were vague, but the latter [‘Inhabitant'] least so in common acceptation, and would not exclude persons absent occasionally for a considerable time on public or private business." Then as now, inhabitant meant being a legal domiciliary, but resident could mean either a domiciliary or a physical presence. Perhaps the Framers desired a person as President who had actually been present in the United States for the required period and had developed an attachment to and understanding of the country, rather than one who was legally an inhabitant, but who may have lived abroad for most of his life. On the other hand, the distinction may have been one of style rather than substance. As Justice Story later noted, "by ‘residence,' in the constitution, is to be understood, not an absolute inhabitancy within the United States during the whole period; but such an inhabitancy, as includes a permanent domicil in the United States."

 

https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/82/presidential-eligibility

 

States cannot impose laws that are outside the boundaries of the constitution.  In other words states cannot have different requirements.   This should get shot down at the first legal test.  Nice try California.    

Think about this, could a state say they cannot be on the ballot unless they once resided in their own state?  Nope.  

No place where it says voters signatures are required to be on the ballot.

[Highmark]

10 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

No place where it says voters signatures are required to be on the ballot.

Which states have those for POTUS?   I though most were for people running in that particular state.

Most rulings on this were taken into consideration of not overwhelming the electorate with candidates.   This would not be ruled in the same manner. 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-14/section-1/access-to-the-ballot

The Equal Protection Clause applies to state specification of qualifications for elective and appointive office. Although one may “have no right” to be elected or appointed to an office, all persons “do have a federal constitutional right to be considered for public service without the burden of invidiously discriminatory disqualification

 

Edited July 31, 2019 by Highmark

[Highmark]

Its really a moot point.   All 50 states could have this law passed and found constitutional and unless something huge comes up on Trump he will get the nomination.

I hope Trump finds a way to fucking stick it to CA financially by taking away grant money or something.   That would be awesome.  

Edited July 31, 2019 by Highmark

[Zambroski]

3 hours ago, Kivalo said:

How does this usurp democracy?

I assume you know the definition of "usurp".

States don't get to infringe on Constitutional rights on elections.  They certainly don't get to do it because they are just plain butt-hurt.

3 hours ago, Jimmy Snacks said:

Simple question he can’t answer.

I can anser any and all.  Unlike you who just thinks you are some contrarian intellectual.  Dude....you are dumb as dirt.   

3 hours ago, Jimmy Snacks said:

Blah, blah....you ain’t running anybody anywhere you fucking mullet headed shit bird.

Sounds to me like you run yourself off these sites.   

[DriftBusta]

2 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

 

I can anser any and all.  Unlike you who just thinks you are some contrarian intellectual.  Dude....you are dumb as dirt.   

Sounds to me like you run yourself off these sites.   

It would be funny if it wasnt so pathetic.

[BOHICA]

What if Trump runs unopposed in the March Cali primary????  He doesn’t even need to provide his tax returns to Cali for the general this law excludes from having to show the tax returns for the general...

[Zambroski]

1 minute ago, DriftBusta said:

It would be funny if it wasnt so pathetic.

That's a fact.  I mean, all he needs to start doing is starting a thread to announce his springboarding from all the meanies on the site.   Fit right in with MC..which is where he pretty much fits intellectually.

[Zambroski]

2 minutes ago, BOHICA said:

What if Trump runs unopposed in the March Cali primary????  He doesn’t even need to provide his tax returns to Cali for the general this law excludes from having to show the tax returns for the general...

Watch what California has planned for this shit.   

[BOHICA]

5 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

Watch what California has planned for this shit.   

I think the RNC should say we will not primary in Cali....  and encourage the republicans in the state to register and vote in the Dem primary for the most beneficial dem candidate to the republicans that the republicans can run against in the General...

[01mxz800]

I think tools and shitslinger would be proud of snacks conversion to the alternate facts party

[washedupmxer]

Taxes 

Russia

Racism

And......

back to taxes

 

[Zambroski]

56 minutes ago, washedupmxer said:

Taxes 

Russia

Racism

And......

back to taxes

 

I miss the Stormy days.  Those were good times!  Damn their false hero Avenatti!!! He screwed it all up!

 

[Jimmy Snacks]

1 hour ago, 01mxz800 said:

I think tools and shitslinger would be proud of snacks conversion to the alternate facts party

Oh look who else wants to jump in....how about you answer how this “usurps democracy” since the halfwit that said it can’t.