HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » "Trumps refusal to disclo...

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 10:07 AM

 

"Trumps refusal to disclose his taxes prompts clever legislation in California"


I’m confident that this will pass because it’s California. If Der Trumpenfuehrer runs for re-election in 2020, this will, no doubt, end up in court and he will wear his little fingers to the bone tweeting about it. New York is considering similar legislation.

President-elect Donald Trump got away with never releasing his tax returns, despite the fact that virtually all other presidential candidates have done so for the past 40 years. But two California state Senators are authoring legislation that they say would make such disclosure a requirement — if the candidates want their names to appear on California ballots.

State Senators Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg) and Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) said that their bill is in direct response to Trump’s refusal to make his taxes public.

Wiener stated:

“The American public deserves to know that the individual they are selecting to be president will have their best interests at the heart of every decision, not the best interests of any business venture or investment fund. Requiring that this basic financial information be made available to voters will help build critical public trust.”

Or as McGuire put it, “This legislation will help make transparency great again.”


https://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/12/22/1613825/--Trump-s-refusal-to-disclose-his-taxes-prompts-clever-legislation-in-California


101 replies, 12034 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 101 replies Author Time Post
Reply "Trumps refusal to disclose his taxes prompts clever legislation in California" (Original post)
Madam45for2923 Dec 2016 OP
Cha Dec 2016 #1
Madam45for2923 Dec 2016 #2
Cha Dec 2016 #3
LaydeeBug Dec 2016 #59
wordpix Dec 2016 #71
maddiemom Dec 2016 #13
meow2u3 Dec 2016 #46
jmowreader Dec 2016 #47
wordpix Dec 2016 #69
LenaBaby61 Dec 2016 #87
yortsed snacilbuper Dec 2016 #4
LongTomH Dec 2016 #21
evilhime Dec 2016 #33
zippythepinhead Dec 2016 #51
yeoman6987 Dec 2016 #5
NobodyHere Dec 2016 #6
Thor_MN Dec 2016 #10
former9thward Dec 2016 #45
Thor_MN Dec 2016 #54
former9thward Dec 2016 #55
Thor_MN Dec 2016 #56
stevenleser Dec 2016 #61
whopis01 Dec 2016 #62
former9thward Dec 2016 #64
stevenleser Dec 2016 #67
whopis01 Dec 2016 #101
stevenleser Dec 2016 #60
former9thward Dec 2016 #66
stevenleser Dec 2016 #68
former9thward Dec 2016 #73
stevenleser Dec 2016 #75
DK504 Dec 2016 #11
mwooldri Dec 2016 #39
Emilybemily Dec 2016 #41
40degreesflaps Dec 2016 #42
stevenleser Dec 2016 #63
40degreesflaps Dec 2016 #88
Rollo Dec 2016 #100
underpants Dec 2016 #52
wordpix Dec 2016 #74
MichMan Dec 2016 #7
dumbcat Dec 2016 #17
milestogo Dec 2016 #8
quakerboy Dec 2016 #49
JustAnotherGen Dec 2016 #9
lark Dec 2016 #12
safeinOhio Dec 2016 #14
Madam45for2923 Dec 2016 #24
Jim Lane Dec 2016 #35
unblock Dec 2016 #15
Squinch Dec 2016 #29
packman Dec 2016 #16
treestar Dec 2016 #18
global1 Dec 2016 #19
dumbcat Dec 2016 #26
revmclaren Dec 2016 #30
uponit7771 Dec 2016 #20
mahatmakanejeeves Dec 2016 #22
tenorly Dec 2016 #23
revmclaren Dec 2016 #31
tenorly Dec 2016 #34
beachbum bob Dec 2016 #25
hughee99 Dec 2016 #27
beachbum bob Dec 2016 #28
OldYallow Dec 2016 #32
mitch96 Dec 2016 #36
OregonBlue Dec 2016 #37
AllenJordan Dec 2016 #38
aikoaiko Dec 2016 #40
Gothmog Dec 2016 #43
CK_John Dec 2016 #44
Mike Nelson Dec 2016 #48
stevenleser Dec 2016 #65
wordpix Dec 2016 #76
Ilsa Dec 2016 #50
iluvtennis Dec 2016 #53
yurbud Dec 2016 #57
fescuerescue Dec 2016 #58
briv1016 Dec 2016 #70
stevenleser Dec 2016 #72
briv1016 Dec 2016 #77
stevenleser Dec 2016 #79
briv1016 Dec 2016 #84
wordpix Dec 2016 #81
wordpix Dec 2016 #78
stevenleser Dec 2016 #80
wordpix Dec 2016 #83
stevenleser Dec 2016 #86
InAbLuEsTaTe Dec 2016 #82
wordpix Dec 2016 #85
crazycatlady Dec 2016 #98
DallasNE Dec 2016 #89
Hamlette Dec 2016 #90
efhmc Dec 2016 #91
temporary311 Dec 2016 #92
Madam45for2923 Dec 2016 #94
MrModerate Dec 2016 #93
Calista241 Dec 2016 #95
MrModerate Dec 2016 #99
oasis Dec 2016 #96
Scurrilous Dec 2016 #97

Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 10:13 AM

1. WOW! Way to FIGHT BACK, CALIFORNIA!

Best news I've heard, Madam.. Thank you!

the m$media****** didn't go after dump's tax returns at all.. too busy droning on Hillary's emails.

“This legislation will help make transparency great again.”

https://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/12/22/1613825/--Trump-s-refusal-to-disclose-his-taxes-prompts-clever-legislation-in-California

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 10:16 AM

2. Yes, Cha! Hope more States will follow. We must never have a pres candidate w/o their taxes!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 10:27 AM

3. NEVER! Because we can't EVER Depend on Media****** for

ANYTHING.

be funny if dump couldn't get on the ballot in certain states because of his tax returns.. let him tweet on that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 11:58 PM

59. Exactly. The media became an arm of the KGB this cycle, no bones about it

 

but I am not sure how scary this really is. When was the last time a KGOPBer carried California in a Presidential election? Reagan?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 12:27 AM

71. major media tidbit tonight in DC here

WH press corps getting a boost with more reporters per media source, reportedly NYT putting 8 or 9 on WH coverage, as are other major media. Each reporter to be assigned a certain topic, e.g. health care, environment. My source was asked if there's space for all these people and she said the last press conf. was so hot and crowded someone fainted. That was before the add-ons.

Also said everyone's in an uproar---not knowing if there will even be press conf's anymore.

I personally am heartened to hear that our MSM corporate media and NYT have deemed to cover the goings on of King Con.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 11:27 AM

13. I seriously doubt Trump will run for re-election if he manages to finish his first term.

He wanted to BE elected POTUS, but doesn't really want the actual day-to-day job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maddiemom (Reply #13)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 07:49 PM

46. I seriously doubt tRump will finish his first term

Either he'll end up dying in office of a heart attack (his eating habits are a heart attack waiting to occur), or will be impeached or resign out of boredom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meow2u3 (Reply #46)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 08:06 PM

47. Add "resign out of frustration"

As soon as Congress tells him they're not going to do anything unconstitutional just because Trump wants it, the National Archives tells him he has to print out and retain all his tweets as public records, and the press stops kissing his ass, Trump will decide he doesn't want the job and will pack up his shit and leave.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Reply #47)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 12:20 AM

69. Congress is full of money grubbing Trumpists so don't count on them to uphold the Constit.

seriously, this Congress hole the line? I doubt it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wordpix (Reply #69)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 01:35 AM

87. Seriously, this Congress hold the line? I doubt it ...

Totally agree.

Bunch of DEVILS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 10:28 AM

4. candidates should get a psycho test to,

Dubya said god told him to invade Iraq.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yortsed snacilbuper (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 12:08 PM

21. Right on!

With an emphasis on Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy; the traits that make up The Dark Triad.

I would also add tests for dementia and Alzheimer's. It's been suggested that Trump has an early onset variant of dementia and Ronnie Raygun was definitely suffering from Alzheimer's, at least during his second term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yortsed snacilbuper (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 12:53 PM

33. Medical and drug too

I truly believe he is on speed... apparently he has a history of prescription amphetamine use for weight loss etc., and it would certainly explain his erratic behavior, his sleeping habits. etc. I so think the country should have known his complete medical history not just his trumpism "I am the healthiest individual to ever run for president" . . . say wha'?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to evilhime (Reply #33)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 08:46 PM

51. Hitler was a speed freak freak

 

Justt saying.
















Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 10:32 AM

5. Unconstitutional. I think every Court would invalidate the law.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 10:39 AM

6. Under what reasoning?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 11:14 AM

10. What in the constitution prevents this?

 

States are generally free to create their own elections laws, provided that they are non-discriminatory. Since the law would be applied to all candidates, it is inherently non-discriminatory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #10)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 07:48 PM

45. This would provide a limitation not in the Constitution.

Not allowed. States are not free to create their own election laws which provide qualifications on federal candidates not in the Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #45)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 09:18 PM

54. Nonsense. Ballot access is set at the state level.

 

Please cite the specific language that you believe disallows a state from creating ballot access laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #54)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 09:24 PM

55. Sure

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

You have to be 35, natural born, and 14 years a resident. Period. Nothing about having to release tax returns or anything else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #55)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 09:29 PM

56. Where is the language that prevents states from setting ballot access laws?

 

I see nothing there prohibiting a state from doing whatever they please. The states make their own election law.

By your opinion, all states would have uniform rules and getting on the ballot would be dead simple. There are more than 50 sets of laws to gain access in all the states and territories, which would tend to disprove your assertion.

But I'm willing to learn what in the constitution backs your claim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #56)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 12:07 AM

61. Nothin, quite the opposite, see my post below re Article II Section I

 

The Constitution grants states wide powers to determine how their electors are chosen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #55)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 12:08 AM

62. So you are claiming that anyone who is 35, natural born and 14 years a resident can appear on the

ballot if they want to? With no other requirements at all?

Do you really believe that is how it works?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whopis01 (Reply #62)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 12:10 AM

64. Do you think a state could pass a law saying a Presidential candidate has to be 45?

In order to get on their ballot. Do you really believe that is how it works?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #64)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 12:17 AM

67. To answer that question you have to start with what he Constitution says regarding thr

 

Choosing of electors. Article II Section I makes that clear. The states have wide latitude for how that is done. That's what each states election for President is, it's that states framework for how their electors are chosen.

So states could pass requirements that each candidate could reasonably meet such as releasing their tax returns. Where the age requirement that you posit could be an issue is that it would be discriminatory on the basis of something a candidate could not change about themselves. Releasing a tax return would not pose such an issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #64)

Fri Dec 30, 2016, 11:24 AM

101. No. You seem rather confused by what I wrote.

I am not sure why you would read that into what I said. It is really quite bizarre.

What I believe is that each state has different rules for deciding who gets to be on a ballot. In many states, California for example, it is up to the Secretary of State to decide.

The requirements for being an eligible candidate for president and the requirements to appear on a ballot by name are not the same. Anyone can run as a write in candidate if they meet the constitutional requirements.

Here are the laws regarding ballot access in each state.
https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_for_presidential_candidates

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #45)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 12:06 AM

60. Nope, read Article II section I. Voters are voting to select electors and Article II Section I

 

Basically gives state legislatures Carter Blanche to determine how their states electors will be chosen.

Section 1 - The Text
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #60)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 12:13 AM

66. What does appointing electors have to do with requiring a candidate

to release tax returns. The applicable section of the Constitution is Article I not II.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #66)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 12:19 AM

68. Because that is what the election is for in each state. You are not voting for President

 

You are voting for electors. This came up again and again during the Florida election of 2000.

You are participating in the choosing of electors as determine by the legislature in that state per Article II Section I.

If you do research on this, you will find out very quickly that I am right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #68)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 12:31 AM

73. I know how electors are chosen and what their role is.

Do you think it would be ok for a state to say presidential candidates have to be 45 in order to appear on their ballot?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #73)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 12:33 AM

75. I already answered that question above. But to be clear...

 

Just because a state or the federal government has the power to do something doesn't entitle them to be discriminatory towards anyone in exercise of that power. So beyond the rules already in place regarding age, no, state legislatures could not put restrictions on age, nor could they place restrictions on race or religion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 11:22 AM

11. There are already requirements

for candidates must meet to get on every ballot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 03:24 PM

39. If applied to all federal elections...

... then it is constitutional. Release X years of tax returns to run for federal office. Fair, equal. Plus it is presently the role of the state to determine its election laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 03:51 PM

41. Bull shit

It is not unConstitutional in any way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 04:36 PM

42. Yeah...

 

...it's a nice idea but there's no way to make it stick. One lawsuit filed in Federal court and out it goes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 40degreesflaps (Reply #42)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 12:09 AM

63. Nope, the Constitution grants state legislatures the power to do this and

 

many other things with respect to how their electors are chosen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #63)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 02:12 AM

88. But If...

 

...most of the state legislatures are Republican, why bother?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 40degreesflaps (Reply #88)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 02:24 AM

100. It's worth the effort...

Because California alone accounts for 55 electoral votes. New York, 29. (or 28 I forget). This is a sizeable chunk of the EC. Granted, Hillary won both CA and NY, but would Trump want to risk not being on the ballot in both states in 2020?

As for the constitutionality, as I recall, the 10th Amendment states that powers not enumerated for the Federal Government devolve to the states. Therefore, any state could, if they wanted, establish release of tax returns as prerequisite for being listed on the state ballot, because it is a power not enumerated for the Federal government. Yet.

I like it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 08:50 PM

52. California is the only state that requires charities (501 C's) to file Schedule B's of their 990

I used to do the registrations for such a charity in 27 states. If they can require certain documents in order for charities to fundraise why can't they require it for this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Reply #52)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 12:31 AM

74. CA under Jerry Brown looks better all the time

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 10:51 AM

7. Additional qualifications on president not stated in the Contitution

No different than a state mandating requirements that they must be between the ages of 40-65, college graduates, serve in the military, members of the Democratic party, pro choice, own dogs, drive hybrid vehicles, etc etc

Of course when we get the Constitutional Amendment passed to get rid of the EC, we could throw income tax disclosure in as well

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MichMan (Reply #7)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 11:53 AM

17. It wouldn't be an additional qualification on being President

not stated in the Constitution. It would be a qualification to be listed on a state ballot, of which there are already many. Time limits, petitions signatures, etc.

Now, of course, red controlled states could also make it a requirement for all persons to swear allegiance to the KKK to appear on their ballots.

I don't think this is gonna work, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 10:58 AM

8. Yeah, but he was never going to win California even if he was on the ballot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to milestogo (Reply #8)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 08:24 PM

49. I think this analysys misses a couple tricks

First.. this would mean any candidate not releasing their returns would find it very hard to even compete in the EC. instead of being a mere (!?!) 3 million down, trumpy would have come out 7 million down. Just on California alone.

But possibly more importantly... if they go further into it.. if they could apply it in the primaries.. it becomes somewhat difficult to get the nod in the first place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 11:12 AM

9. I like the concept

Not sure if he can be held to it.

We may be better to allow Congress and the Senate at Betsy Devos' request to dismantle public schools (will hurt red states severely) and get Trump to sign off on it. When they have to pay out of pocket because their vouchers don't cover the full cost . . .

We aren't seeing those tax returns unless someone "obtains" the hard copies and publishes them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 11:25 AM

12. Boom goes the dynamite

States rights and all that, this will be fine as long as one of the liberal SCOTUS don't retire or get killed. If that happens, we might as well crown him emperor for life and call ourselves the 4th Reich.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 11:29 AM

14. Is there a Lawyer in the house?

Any chance, in one of the many law suites with him, they could be included in Discovery? Not that many courts take discovery very seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #14)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 12:17 PM

24. This sounds like a good idea!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Reply #24)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 01:18 PM

35. Not likely that a court would order disclosure of his tax returns.

 

I assume that such disclosure is what you mean.

Most courts do take discovery very seriously. The old days of trial by ambush are over. Litigants must make extensive disclosures, on pain of having sanctions applied, up to and including having the case determined against them without ever going to a jury.

Nevertheless, courts recognize that tax returns include a great deal of information that implicates privacy concerns. A party would have to make a strong showing of relevance to the case. For example, a contractor who was stiffed on a bill or a special prosecutor investigating something like the Bondi donations would have no legitimate basis for obtaining Trump's complete tax returns.

If some particular item on the returns were deemed potentially relevant, Trump might be ordered to produce the returns in camera, meaning that the documents are provided only to court personnel, not to the opposing litigants or their lawyers. For purposes of the case, the court might say only something like "The court has confirmed that Mr. Trump took a deduction of $___ for thus-and-such."

These are the standards that are applied to any ordinary litigant. That Trump is President would not give any special privileges, but the flip side is that no court would order disclosure out of a belief that the President's finances should be public knowledge. Disclosure would have to relate to the much narrower issues in the particular case that was pending before that judge. I won't rule it out completely, but it's very unlikely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 11:44 AM

15. i think this is possible constitutionally, but republicans write off california anyway.

technically, the states aren't requirement to have presidential elections at all, believe it or not. the legislature can simply pick the electors themselves.

plus, there are already ballot requirements, e.g., a certain number of signatures by a certain date, etc. seems to me they can require certain additional information as part of the ballot requirements.


that said, it only keeps toxic trump off the california ballot, and we all know he's losing california anyway.


i just hope republicans can't figure out some comparable requirement that keeps a democratic candidate off the ballot in what would otherwise be a battleground state, such as florida.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #15)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 12:26 PM

29. They can write off states, but if they don't show up on the ballot in those states, it will be

very damaging to them.

A candidate that couldn't get onto the NY or California ballot? Or MA or CT? They're not going to want to pick such a person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 11:49 AM

16. I like it - but, go a step further

require that all physical, health records be released as well as (here I'm dreaming the impossible) undergoing several sessions with a psychiatrist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 11:56 AM

18. Great idea!

It only takes one state, too, since once they are out, they are out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 11:57 AM

19. Every State That Has A Dem Legislature Should Do The Same...

make it a requirement to have any candidate that wants to run for president and be listed on that states ballot disclose their taxes.

Repugs (i.e. the KGOP) are always pro states rights so it would be hard for them to challenge this. And after what the Repugs (KGOP) recently pulled on the newly elected Dem Governor - this tax thing in Dem states would be a good response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to global1 (Reply #19)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 12:20 PM

26. And every state with a RePug legislature

can make it a requirement to disclose all college transcripts, high school records, birth records, lawsuit records, divorce proceedings, previously sealed records, etc. Be careful what you wish for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dumbcat (Reply #26)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 12:29 PM

30. That would be great!

Many of those would have sunk Trump before he even got to the primaries especially the lawsuit records and sealed documents.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 11:58 AM

20. NICE !!! I don't see how they fight this in court!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 12:15 PM

22. "... not the best interests of any business venture or investment fund."

Or foreign power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 12:16 PM

23. I applaud them - but it's all for naught as long as the Electoral College decides.

And as we've just learned, the Rapepublicans have learned how to win in the E.C. even with large losses in the popular vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tenorly (Reply #23)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 12:31 PM

31. If they are not on the state ballet, they do not get the states electoral votes.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to revmclaren (Reply #31)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 01:10 PM

34. Sure. But I doubt we'll ever see bills like this from red/swing states (where it could cost the GOP)

Just imagine: if Albany and Sacramento had had legislation like that on the books already, King Con would have lost the national popular vote by upwards of 10 million - and still be President-elect today.

As long as only progressive states like California and New York pass such legislation, rather than federally by Congress as it should be, these reforms are unlikely to make a real impact on a GOP candidate's electability - especially with all the nifty new voter suppression bills they've been passing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 12:19 PM

25. every blue state should consider similar laws tied for all running in all primary and main elections

 

that any candidate running for any office must have TOTAL financial disclosure of everything to be placed on the ballot or considered for elected office....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 12:23 PM

27. They should require all medical records and college papers

As well. Perhaps it's too much to ask, but they should also require that the candidate be a Democrat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 12:23 PM

28. hell why not make a requirement that unless every single party candidate released full disclosure

 

that NO candidate of that party can be placed on the ballot....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 12:43 PM

32. Pass This In Florida

 

Where it really matters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldYallow (Reply #32)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 02:06 PM

36. In this state run and for republicans???

I think not... Herr Scott would never hear of it..
m

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 02:35 PM

37. All the blue states need to do this. He won't be on their ballots for 2020.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 02:58 PM

38. Does it really matter?

 

Very few republicans care about CA. It is typically a given for democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 03:42 PM

40. Im pretty sure Trump will simply say, "FU CA, I don't need you to win"


And he doesn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 06:33 PM

43. This will be fun to watch

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 07:22 PM

44. Primaries are fairly new and the party could go the convention route, if

it even will passes muster in the courts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 08:24 PM

48. This is a good idea, but it won't work...

...California can't make federal law and Republicans would not let it go national.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mike Nelson (Reply #48)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 12:12 AM

65. See Article II Section I of the Constitution regarding the choosing of electors. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mike Nelson (Reply #48)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 12:34 AM

76. the law proposed is a state law

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 08:40 PM

50. McMullin couldn't get on many states' ballots because of state laws

requiring a deadline to be listed. Deadlines, if even present everwhere, vary state to state. I hope CA is successful in passing this and other states follow suit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 08:54 PM

53. Love it. When its put on the ballot here in Cali, I will be voting YES on it nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 10:33 PM

57. great idea!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 11:39 PM

58. That will certainly dash Trump's chances of winning California in 2020.


He can't win there if he's not on the ballet.

How cool...The yet unnamed Dem will win unopposed in 2020 and carry 100% of the vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 12:25 AM

70. It's a fun concept to think about, but

all the republicans would have to do is pass a federal law to the contrary and the supremacy clause would kick in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to briv1016 (Reply #70)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 12:27 AM

72. Nope, that Federal law would be Unconstitutional.

 

Read article II Section I regarding the choosing of electors. It is a right that has been given to the states. You can't pass federal laws taking away rights given to the states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #72)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 12:35 AM

77. But they can use the Voting Rights Act as precedent to pass the law.

Even though they recently overturned most of it. Especially if they get to replace one more liberal justice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to briv1016 (Reply #77)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 12:38 AM

79. Nope, they can't. Similar to what i said to someone else above, restrictions on the

 

state legislatures designed to prevent them from violating citizens equal protection under the law don't constitute a restriction on their power. Neither the states or the federal government are allowed to be discriminatory in the exercise of their powers anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #79)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 12:47 AM

84. I'm not disagreeing with you.

But when they have a flimsy excuse, "news" outlets to regurgitate it and a Supreme Court that will back them, truth and the Constitution don't mean much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to briv1016 (Reply #77)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 12:42 AM

81. Obama needs to issue an EO to put Garland on the bench

He should do it. He can justify it by saying he asked the Senate for consent, they would not vote on the nom, sohe's issuing an Exec Order to get the job done.

Let them fume. I don't think they can impeach Garland if he's installed and if they try, on what grounds?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #72)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 12:37 AM

78. your argument that choosing electors equals CA requiring tax disclosure doesn't work

IMO, you need to hone your argument, counselor, b/c you're losing the case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wordpix (Reply #78)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 12:42 AM

80. Nope, it would be a simple law, to wit:

 

No candidate may receive the votes of California's electors who has not made financial disclosures to include publicizing their state and federal tax returns for the past 7 years.

That would be perfectly within Article II Section I.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #80)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 12:46 AM

83. OK I'm seeing it. On edit:

No candidate who has not made financial disclosures, which shall include public release of state and federal tax returns for the past 7 years, may receive the votes of California's electors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wordpix (Reply #83)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 12:59 AM

86. Yep. What came out in the 2000 recount is that this is one of those ticking timebombs in the

 

Constitution.

Earlier the same day that the SCOTUS decision came out on Bush v Gore, the Florida state legislature voted to give the states electors to Bush citing Article II Section I as giving them the power. Once the SCOTUS ruled, they quickly buried this news and never spoke of it again, but there was some coverage:

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2000/12/elec-d07.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/nov/30/uselections2000.usa2

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=122367&page=1

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showflorida2000.php?fileid=fla_legislature12-06

As you see in the 2nd to last link, the only thing that would have potentially made this invalid is that since it was AFTER election day it could be considered Ex Post Facto.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 12:45 AM

82. Love it! Great idea!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 12:47 AM

85. "Make transparency great again. Great line, I'm gonna use it locally

I live in a red town in a blue state that is turning red if we don't get our act together as Dems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wordpix (Reply #85)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 10:06 PM

98. Love that saying

I live in a red county in a blue state (D supermajority in the legislature, unpopular GOP termed out Governor and the seat's likely to flip in November if the Dems don't blow this one). I'll be contacting my GOP legislators about this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 02:32 AM

89. And The GOP Response Would Be

To pass a law in a State like Wisconsin to forbid a candidate from releasing their tax returns if they want their name to appear on the ballot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 02:34 AM

90. has to happen in red states, NY and CA won't matter. It's winner take all, remember. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 03:29 AM

91. If we can't all move to California,

can we just make it the source of all federal governance?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 03:33 AM

92. Would this apply to primaries as well?

Or just the general?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to temporary311 (Reply #92)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 10:11 AM

94. Not sure! Makes sense to start from the primaries. We need transparency starting then.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 07:54 AM

93. What about demanding this information before . . .

Air Force One is allowed into California airspace?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrModerate (Reply #93)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 10:26 AM

95. States don't have airspace. All US airspace is governed and controlled by the FAA.

And this would be a disaster. Say Delta Airlines lobbies Georgia to prohibit other airlines from flying through "Georgian" airspace, and Illinois does the same with United Airlines. We'd have complete pandemonium.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Reply #95)

Tue Dec 27, 2016, 06:11 PM

99. Air Traffic Control mostly sits in California. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 10:33 AM

96. Blue California will save our nation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Original post)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 09:40 PM

97. K & R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread