Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thankfully we still have the Constitution and the 10th Amendment intact in this country. When a blatant tyrant and racist comes to power in this country under dubious circumstances our individual states can fight back to protect our American Democracy.
The sum total of our national power is not solely entrenched in Washington DC. Not in the Congress or the Executive Branch. The people of those individual states, through their elected officials, have the legal authority to do what is necessary to protect themselves.
California's New Law Embarassing and Anti-Democratic
1. How is it "Anti-Democratic"?
2. Why do Trump supporters all of a sudden care about being "Democratic"? In the past, when anyone brought up the fact that we are a Democracy, we have heard ad nauseum "this is a republic!".
3. How is the Electoral College "Democratic"?
4. How is Gerrymandering "Democratic"? The GOP has a majority in the Senate by getting fewer votes. Democratic?
5. The president lost the popular vote by millions of people. How is that Democratic?
So glad that the alt-right has finally acknowledged we should be "Democratic"!
There will only be one person embarrassed about tax returns, and we know who he is.
Last edited by Enigma777; 07-31-2019 at 04:50 PM..
California is not restricting the political views of the candidate, they are trying to ensure the voting public is informed about the candidate. If you are seeking an equivalency for conservative states a more apt analog would be for them to require the birth certificate of the candidate.
I don't see anything wrong with an informed public. People should know exactly who they are voting for. Why would anyone think that is a bad thing?
Somebody above mentioned forcing college grades be published. I don't have a problem with that either. It would put an end to rumors about the candidate.
By disenfranchising millions of Californians by removing the choice to vote for Trump, a major party candidate and sitting president who already met qualifications to run in the federal election? And when you say "California" what you should really mean is "Gavin Newsom" since the people of the state had zero to do with this. Where does it say the state government has the responsibility to make sure voters are informed in federal elections, and how would this be measured? By that logic, they should bar any candidate who didn't participate in debates or publish a list of issues on a website because that's not enough information for voters to make an educated decision.
This is unconstitutional, absurd, and I can't believe anyone would defend it no matter their political affiliation. Suppose another state demands medical/dental/optometric records from age 18 and up, another state says it's in their people's best interest to know how the candidate spends their money, so ten years of bank and credit card statements must be released. And yet another state decides a candidates GPA and SAT scores are pertinent information in how their voters vote, so they demand that. Continuing on the conflict-of-interest argument, another state could demand the disclosure of all private organization memberships, and the minutes from those meetings where the candidate was in attendance. This cockamamie law sets a dangerous president.
California's New Law Embarassing and Anti-Democratic
1. How is it "Anti-Democratic"?
2. Why do Trump supporters all of a sudden care about being "Democratic"? In the past, when anyone brought up the fact that we are a Democracy, we have heard ad nauseum "this is a republic!".
3. How is the Electoral College "Democratic"?
4. How is Gerrymandering "Democratic"? The GOP has a majority in the Senate by getting fewer votes. Democratic?
5. The president lost the popular vote by millions of people. How is that Democratic?
So glad that the alt-right has finally acknowledged we should be "Democratic"!
There will only be one person embarrassed about tax returns, and we know who he is.
The EC is far more "Democratic" that passing a law preventing people from voting for their preferred candidate. Most importantly, this law is unconstitutional so it's going to die as soon as the USSC hears it and nukes it. You are correct that we are not a Democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic and it's worked great for us for more than 200 years (never better than how well it worked in 2016 though).
That law will never stand a constitutional challenge.
And if the law does stand, middle America / flyover country can start thinking about seceding from this so called 'union of states' because there's no reason to remain in it, at this stage. I don't want California and a few other states running things, their way.
I fully support secession. I have never been less optimistic about the future of this country and its ability to remain united. Red states used to say it was all about state's rights until they got control. Now they are all about federalizing as much as they possibly can. The change has been amazing to watch. For all the red states screaming about secession, they have no idea how much the west would be happy to agree. If I could wave a wand, I would redraw the northern border to put Western Washington in Canada. I have no interest in living in a country where less than half the voters were able to put Trump into office.
If this law is what it takes to make flyover country secede, I support it more than ever. It will make it easier for other states to do the same , including the west.
"In many cases, the United States Supreme Court has expressed deference to the states in deciding what qualifications to impose as a condition for being on the ballot. In Bullock vs. Carter (1972), the Court said, “Far from recognizing candidacy as a ‘fundamental right,’” state governments have authority to set conditions that must be met for a candidate to be on a ballot. The court has put qualifications on those conditions, saying that ballot access rules are likely to be struck down if they discriminate against less affluent candidates or impose restrictions on new or small political parties. But requiring disclosure of tax returns does not run afoul of these conditions." Op Ed, L.A. Times
This case was about candidates paying filing fees for local office. Nowhere near the same.
By disenfranchising millions of Californians by removing the choice to vote for Trump, a major party candidate and sitting president who already met qualifications to run in the federal election? And when you say "California" what you should really mean is "Gavin Newsom" since the people of the state had zero to do with this. Where does it say the state government has the responsibility to make sure voters are informed in federal elections, and how would this be measured? By that logic, they should bar any candidate who didn't participate in debates or publish a list of issues on a website because that's not enough information for voters to make an educated decision. This is unconstitutional, absurd, and I can't believe anyone would defend it no matter their political affiliation. Suppose another state demands medical/dental/optometric records from age 18 and up, another state says it's in their people's best interest to know how the candidate spends their money, so ten years of bank and credit card statements must be released. And yet another state decides a candidates GPA and SAT scores are pertinent information in how their voters vote, so they demand that. Continuing on the conflict-of-interest argument, another state could demand the disclosure of all private organization memberships, and the minutes from those meetings where the candidate was in attendance. This cockamamie law sets a dangerous president.
Dangerous president? That I agree with!
Nobody is taking 'choices' away. All Trump has to do is follow the rules--you know, same as that which he is always pontificating to immigrants?
Nobody is taking 'choices' away. All Trump has to do is follow the rules--you know, same as that which he is always pontificating to immigrants?
Just follow the rules, and they will let you in.
Hah! Even I find my typo funny. Sometimes my fingers are faster than my eyes.
But why does Gavin Newsom get to make the rules for a presidential election in the middle of a term? Do you support a law that requires everyone to show their ID to vote? Because the Democrat argument was that the end result disenfranchised poor and minority voters. How about stop-and-frisk? Your argument that all-you-have-to-do-is-follow-the-rules/if-you're-innocent-what's-to-worry-about could be made for those practices, as well. A hard right governor could sign a law requiring voter ID. What will he or she say to 90 year-old Miss Jenkins who's turned away at the polling office, because she's never learned to drive and is known personally by everyone in her small, close-knit community? "Just follow the rules, and they will let you in."
California's New Law Embarassing and Anti-Democratic
1. How is it "Anti-Democratic"?
2. Why do Trump supporters all of a sudden care about being "Democratic"? In the past, when anyone brought up the fact that we are a Democracy, we have heard ad nauseum "this is a republic!".
3. How is the Electoral College "Democratic"?
4. How is Gerrymandering "Democratic"? The GOP has a majority in the Senate by getting fewer votes. Democratic?
5. The president lost the popular vote by millions of people. How is that Democratic?
So glad that the alt-right has finally acknowledged we should be "Democratic"!
There will only be one person embarrassed about tax returns, and we know who he is.
This action by the Democratic controlled California legislature and the Democratic governor is beyond embarrassing. It is pathetic, unconstitutional, and highly anti-democratic. This is exactly what tin pot fascist regimes around the world do. That ANYONE can justify this is obscene. I would be equally opposed if a Republican legislature and a Republican governor did something similar just to keep a Democratic candidate or politician off the ballot. Your questions about the electoral college, gerrymandering, and the popular vote has nothing to do with this subject and to try to use them to argue about taking away the right of people to vote who disagree with you makes you look like a petty totalitarian. I am appalled when the two major parties collude to keep minor parties off the ballot (it happens in many states). But for one major party to use their overwhelming electoral dominance of a state to try to effectively ban the opposing party strikes at the very roots of our democratic system of government. And as others have noted on here, this could open a Pandora's box of similar legislation in other states. That would cause chaos in our political system, and would make our country unrecognizable.
Remind me what the issue is with the tax forms? Trump cheated and the IRS let him get away with it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
