RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: California to Trump: No Tax Returns, No Ballot - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

California to Trump: No Tax Returns, No Ballot Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   MTP Reggie 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 36,753
  • Joined: 13-January 04

Posted 13 May 2019 - 08:25 AM

California to Trump: No Tax Returns, No Ballot
There's absolutely, positively no way this could blow up in Democrats faces, right?
May 6th, 2019
by Marc Giller
The Resurgent

<More Surprise Here>

California Democrats sure do love their taxes, maybe even more than they hate Donald Trump. Now, thanks to some creative legislation, they've managed to combine their two biggest hobbies into one package—and it's a a humdinger for sure. USA Today has the details:

The California Legislature is attempting to force presidential candidates to publicly disclose their tax returns — a move that could bar President Donald Trump from appearing on the state's primary ballot if he does not make the documents public. The state Senate voted 27-10 on Thursday to require anyone appearing on the state's presidential primary ballot to publicly release five years' worth of income tax returns. The proposal is in response to Trump, who bucked 40 years of tradition by refusing to release his tax returns prior to his election in 2016.

Ah, tradition! It's good to see Democrats embracing that again—especially after ditching traditional values when it comes to mundane stuff like religion and family. With presidential tax returns, though, thank heaven they've got their priorities straight.

Of course, there's a big difference between traditional and constitutionally mandated—a nuance that seems to be lost on the California legislature.

California's presidential primary is scheduled for March 3. If the bill becomes law, Trump could not appear on the state's primary ballot without filing his tax returns with the California secretary of state.

Because the California secretary of state's office has a total right to see the federal tax returns of anybody it wants for any reason it wants, right? No overreach there, folks.

"We believe that President Trump, if he truly doesn't have anything to hide, should step up and release his tax returns," said Sen. Mike McGuire, a Democrat from Healdsburg and the co-author of the bill along with Sen. Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat.

Yes, because there's absolutely no way, no how that Democrats and the media would attempt to portray whatever they might find in Trump's returns in a negative light, even if everything turns out to be perfectly legal and above board—right? I mean, it's not like they have a track record of smearing innocent people with innuendo and outright lies. Just ask Brett Kavanaugh and the Covington kids.

In fact, this is such a reasonable law that I would have been shocked to find that California hadn't tried to pass something like it before. And, as it turns out, it actually did:

The Legislature passed a nearly identical bill in 2017, only to have it vetoed by Gov. Jerry Brown, telling lawmakers he was concerned the law was unconstitutional. Brown, a Democrat, refused to release his tax returns while in office.

But. . .but. . .if Jerry Brown truly didn't have anything to hide, why didn't he step up and release his tax returns during the entirety of his last eight years in office? And why, during all that time, did it only become important to the California legislature after Trump got elected in 2016? It sure seems as if the crisis of unreleased tax returns would be felt ever greater so close to home. If it didn't matter in Sacramento, why should it matter in DC?

(snip)

<More Surprise Here>
0

#2 User is offline   Noclevermoniker 

  • Wire Dachsies Matter
  • Group: +Silver Community Supporter
  • Posts: 17,480
  • Joined: 13-November 03

Posted 13 May 2019 - 08:28 AM

It's amazing how the leftists have turned our legal system on its head over the 2016 election. Now, all Republicans and conservatives must daily prove their innocence on any matter the leftist idiots demand.

Someone needs some throat punches.

It seems to me, with all the leaks in DC, that if there was anything amiss in Trump's tax returns, it would have made its way to the news cycle by now. Lord knows, somebody's looking....

This post has been edited by Noclevermoniker: 13 May 2019 - 08:30 AM

0

#3 User is offline   Wag-a-Muffin (D) 

  • Still clinging bitterly. . .
  • View blog
  • Group: Blog Moderator
  • Posts: 19,965
  • Joined: 03-November 04

Posted 13 May 2019 - 09:13 AM

The should just read the NY Times. (Wait. Don't all leftists already read the NY Times?)
0

#4 User is offline   MikeTexas 

  • <no title>
  • Group: 100+ Posts NonDonor
  • Posts: 103
  • Joined: 26-August 16

Posted 13 May 2019 - 09:27 AM

Imagine the response if someone had said to Obama, no birth certificate no ballot. The cries of racism would still be echoing around the world.
0

#5 User is offline   RedSoloCup 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 6,670
  • Joined: 05-June 15

Posted 13 May 2019 - 09:29 AM

Trump should sell them to Mexico as revenge.

View PostMikeTexas, on 13 May 2019 - 09:27 AM, said:

Imagine the response if someone had said to Obama, no birth certificate no ballot. The cries of racism would still be echoing around the world.


:yes: Kommiefornia would be having a <censored> fit!
0

#6 User is offline   Italian Biker 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 4,211
  • Joined: 13-November 03

Posted 13 May 2019 - 10:35 AM

I would love some reporter, somewhere, anywhere on this planet, to ask the democrat leadership what gives them the right to view his tax returns. Who "investigated", and has "evidence" of some alleged wrong doing by Trump, and what did they find that that justifies his returns being given to democrats. The "he's a racist, mysoginist, furry kitten grabber and is literally hitler" does not count as legitimate reason.
0

#7 User is offline   Bookdoc 

  • Daddy's little girl
  • Group: +Silver Community Supporter
  • Posts: 5,264
  • Joined: 07-September 05

Posted 13 May 2019 - 11:25 AM

Is this legal? For the Constitutional lawyers out there. :coolshades:
0

#8 User is offline   Coach 

  • Coach
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 14,990
  • Joined: 17-November 03

Posted 13 May 2019 - 12:06 PM

View PostBookdoc, on 13 May 2019 - 11:25 AM, said:

Is this legal? For the Constitutional lawyers out there. :coolshades:



Mark Levin answered that question on his show last night, "Life, Liberty and Levin". There are true Constitutional scholar experts all over the place. They are never featured on network news or in print media. Fortunately our new Attorney General is a student of the Constitution and can help get this crap sorted out. The President has been the most disciplined politician we have had since Reagan and the only way progressive/socialist traitors can take him down is by defying the Constitution. Since that is their goal any way we are facing a Constitutional crisis of their making. The last time that happened we had the Civil War. The new Civil War has already started, it just hasn't reached the shooting stage yet.
0

#9 User is offline   Taggart Transcontinental 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 27,944
  • Joined: 22-October 03

Posted 13 May 2019 - 12:11 PM

View PostBookdoc, on 13 May 2019 - 11:25 AM, said:

Is this legal? For the Constitutional lawyers out there. :coolshades:


https://thefederalis...se-tax-returns/

Quote

Arkansas was one of those states, and the law they passed quickly found its way into court. The case, U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, was appealed to the Supreme Court, which held that the term limits were unconstitutional. The opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens cut right to the logical inconsistency of states altering the qualifications for federal offices.

[A]s the Framers recognized, electing representatives to the National Legislature was a new right, arising from the Constitution itself. The Tenth Amendment thus provides no basis for concluding that the States possess reserved power to add qualifications to those that are fixed in the Constitution. Instead, any state power to set the qualifications for membership in Congress must derive not from the reserved powers of state sovereignty, but rather from the delegated powers of national sovereignty. In the absence of any constitutional delegation to the States of power to add qualifications to those enumerated in the Constitution, such a power does not exist.


This could be an entertaining tit for tat response. Lets say Alabama legislatures create a rule that you cannot be on the ballot if you do not pledge allegiance to the US, and guarantee the Constitution is the law of the land. Oh and lets say they decide that you cannot believe in socialism in any form. Wouldn't that be a wonderful thought. Then no marxist could ever get on the ballot in any state with that law in place.

Quote

If the states can add the disclosure of income tax returns as a requirement, why could they not add other requirements? Could they keep candidates off the ballot if they do not own property? Or if they own too much? The Constitution imposes a minimum age of 35, but maybe some state thinks fifty is a better requirement, to ensure that a candidate has the requisite life experience. Maybe certain professional background is necessary. Could a state require a presidential candidate to have served in the military? To have held elective office? To have worked in the private sector? All of these ideas would find favor with some constituency or other.



0

#10 User is offline   usapatriot 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 371
  • Joined: 16-August 17

Posted 13 May 2019 - 02:10 PM

View PostTaggart Transcontinental, on 13 May 2019 - 12:11 PM, said:


The Federalist article states the Supreme Court has already found laws such as these to be unconstitutional, so it may get past some liberal (yes, Roberts there are liberal and conservative judges, you idiot!) Odumbo judge, but it will get stopped at the next level. As one of the GOP law-makers said, this law is only for the "fake news" to lap up and it will never be implemented, and he suggested their time would be better spent trying to fix the many issues facing Californians (e.g., homelessness, soon to be brown outs, sky high costs of housing unless you are an illegal, in which case it is free, etc.).
0

#11 User is offline   Currahee! 

  • <no title>
  • Group: 100+ Posts NonDonor
  • Posts: 2,247
  • Joined: 21-April 04

Posted 13 May 2019 - 10:18 PM

Let them go ahead and do this.....it would go toSCOTUS and they would declare it violates the Constitution.....and they would look even more stupid.....if that’s possible.

Like Pres. Trump would have gotten any of California’s electoral votes anyway.
0

#12 User is offline   RedSoloCup 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 6,670
  • Joined: 05-June 15

Posted 14 May 2019 - 09:55 AM

View PostCurrahee!, on 13 May 2019 - 10:18 PM, said:

Let them go ahead and do this.....it would go toSCOTUS and they would declare it violates the Constitution.....and they would look even more stupid.....if that’s possible.

Like Pres. Trump would have gotten any of California’s electoral votes anyway.


:yes:
0

#13 User is offline   GhostOfAndrewJackson 

  • <no title>
  • Group: 100+ Posts NonDonor
  • Posts: 103
  • Joined: 17-April 19

Posted 14 May 2019 - 10:22 AM

View PostCurrahee!, on 13 May 2019 - 10:18 PM, said:

Let them go ahead and do this.....it would go toSCOTUS and they would declare it violates the Constitution.....and they would look even more stupid.....if that’s possible.

Like Pres. Trump would have gotten any of California’s electoral votes anyway.


You have more faith in the men in dresses than I do. With Kavanaugh and Roberts on it, you have a left leaning Supreme court.
0

#14 User is offline   MTP Reggie 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 36,753
  • Joined: 13-January 04

Posted 14 May 2019 - 11:10 AM

https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/30705772_10156609692272922_1592160603013644288_n.jpg?_nc_cat=101&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=8a9525d792cb837aea52a40a0ab7edd6&oe=5D5594EC
0

#15 User is offline   Mrdirt73 

  • Not everyone gets to be an astronaut when they grow up.
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 4,852
  • Joined: 19-August 03

Posted 14 May 2019 - 11:15 AM

View PostTaggart Transcontinental, on 13 May 2019 - 12:11 PM, said:

https://thefederalis...se-tax-returns/


This could be an entertaining tit for tat response. Lets say Alabama legislatures create a rule that you cannot be on the ballot if you do not pledge allegiance to the US, and guarantee the Constitution is the law of the land. Oh and lets say they decide that you cannot believe in socialism in any form. Wouldn't that be a wonderful thought. Then no marxist could ever get on the ballot in any state with that law in place.





Let's just cut to the chase, and have a requirement that a candidate has be of a certain political party in order to be on the ballot.
0

#16 User is offline   gscarfe 

  • Newbie
  • Group: Registered Guest
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 13-March 04

Posted 14 May 2019 - 12:39 PM

View PostMrdirt73, on 14 May 2019 - 11:15 AM, said:

Let's just cut to the chase, and have a requirement that a candidate has be of a certain political party in order to be on the ballot.


Believe me, California is doing all it can to achieve that particular goal.



0

#17 User is offline   Ticked@TinselTown 

  • Unimpressed with Celebutards since Always
  • View blog
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 28,929
  • Joined: 01-April 03

Posted 25 May 2019 - 12:02 AM

View PostMTP Reggie, on 13 May 2019 - 08:25 AM, said:

California to Trump: No Tax Returns, No Ballot
There's absolutely, positively no way this could blow up in Democrats faces, right?
May 6th, 2019
by Marc Giller
The Resurgent

<More Surprise Here>

California Democrats sure do love their taxes, maybe even more than they hate Donald Trump. Now, thanks to some creative legislation, they've managed to combine their two biggest hobbies into one package—and it's a a humdinger for sure. USA Today has the details:

The California Legislature is attempting to force presidential candidates to publicly disclose their tax returns — a move that could bar President Donald Trump from appearing on the state's primary ballot if he does not make the documents public. The state Senate voted 27-10 on Thursday to require anyone appearing on the state's presidential primary ballot to publicly release five years' worth of income tax returns. The proposal is in response to Trump, who bucked 40 years of tradition by refusing to release his tax returns prior to his election in 2016.

Ah, tradition! It's good to see Democrats embracing that again—especially after ditching traditional values when it comes to mundane stuff like religion and family. With presidential tax returns, though, thank heaven they've got their priorities straight.

Of course, there's a big difference between traditional and constitutionally mandated—a nuance that seems to be lost on the California legislature.

California's presidential primary is scheduled for March 3. If the bill becomes law, Trump could not appear on the state's primary ballot without filing his tax returns with the California secretary of state.

Because the California secretary of state's office has a total right to see the federal tax returns of anybody it wants for any reason it wants, right? No overreach there, folks.

"We believe that President Trump, if he truly doesn't have anything to hide, should step up and release his tax returns," said Sen. Mike McGuire, a Democrat from Healdsburg and the co-author of the bill along with Sen. Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat.

Yes, because there's absolutely no way, no how that Democrats and the media would attempt to portray whatever they might find in Trump's returns in a negative light, even if everything turns out to be perfectly legal and above board—right? I mean, it's not like they have a track record of smearing innocent people with innuendo and outright lies. Just ask Brett Kavanaugh and the Covington kids.

In fact, this is such a reasonable law that I would have been shocked to find that California hadn't tried to pass something like it before. And, as it turns out, it actually did:

The Legislature passed a nearly identical bill in 2017, only to have it vetoed by Gov. Jerry Brown, telling lawmakers he was concerned the law was unconstitutional. Brown, a Democrat, refused to release his tax returns while in office.

But. . .but. . .if Jerry Brown truly didn't have anything to hide, why didn't he step up and release his tax returns during the entirety of his last eight years in office? And why, during all that time, did it only become important to the California legislature after Trump got elected in 2016? It sure seems as if the crisis of unreleased tax returns would be felt ever greater so close to home. If it didn't matter in Sacramento, why should it matter in DC?

(snip)

<More Surprise Here>


California doesn't get to re-write tax law or violate what is stated very clearly in the IRS information about an individual's tax return and their privacy pertaining to them.
0

#18 User is offline   JerryL 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 12,867
  • Joined: 06-October 03

Posted 25 May 2019 - 01:04 AM

Great. So the next thing is for the FEC to tell California that if they add unconstitutional requirements to federal elections that California votes will not be counted, period.

Hmmmm, what would be the outcome for leftists if we did that?

This post has been edited by JerryL: 25 May 2019 - 01:04 AM

0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users