U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Do you support ballot qualifications outside of the constitution?
Yes: states should put any kind of limitation that they want even for political motivations 7 14.29%
I only support this one and can't fathom other important reasons to do something 1 2.04%
No: This is anti-Democratic. 41 83.67%
Voters: 49. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Today, 09:03 AM
 
Location: Middle of the ocean
31,947 posts, read 20,133,803 times
Reputation: 46141

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
So basically the issue for you is getting Trump and not actually shining a light. Got it.
No, had to stretch for that didn't you?

I am for all presidents doing this because it is important. For 4 decades they have, on the honor system. This one won't, so I believe we should make it mandatory and enforceable by law.

Unlike asking only one President for his birth certificate. THAT is out to get an individual.
__________________
____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Today, 10:40 AM
 
16,884 posts, read 9,164,268 times
Reputation: 6850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hesychios View Post
Actually, it is to appear on the primary ballot AFAIK.
What difference does it make?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hesychios View Post
I think having an informed electorate is a good thing. Doesn't everyone?
So you can honestly say that you would have been fine with a red state passing a law that an independent doctor gets to examine the health of a candidate and then the red state attorney can release as much or as little to the public on Hillary's health or she gets left off the ballot?

Hey that would make the electorate more informed!


Also, Obama was portrayed as smart, but wouldn't release his test scores or grades. You would be fine with red states passing a law to better inform their electorates on the intelligence of candidates where they must release test scores and grades or get left off the ballot - of course once again the red state attorney general could make public as many or as few of these scores as wanted.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA View Post
Do you support ballot qualifications outside of the constitution?


Constitution provides the states the exclusive right to administer elections. California's law is not an additional qualification. Every state has application forms and deadlines that must be met. Courts have ruled that ballot application rules are constitutional as long as they are even handed and are applied equally to all candidates. Requiring open disclosure and transparency to ensure the voters are well informed about all candidates is a legitimate purpose.
It doesn't permit the states to violate the constitution.

Deadlines are common sense...you have to prepare ballots in advance.

A state cannot say that you must be 40 to appear on the ballot as president instead of 35 prescribed by the constitution. What California is doing is targeting a candidate for partisan purposes by adding a new qualification or you get left off the ballot.


And once again...would you be fine with a red state making an "Obama rule" so voters could better be informed of how smart a candidate actually is. Must release grades and test scores...maybe even have an independent IQ test administered. Hey intelligence of a candidate is important to many voters. The red state attorney general could then choose what to release and how much.

Then we will have the "Hillary rule" in red states with health records. Hey you want voters to be informed and health is important we heard in 2008 a lot of Democrats talking about McCain's health. Let's do this. And once again the red state attorney general can choose what to release or not to release. If the candidate doesn't comply then drop them from the ballot!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 10:42 AM
 
51,020 posts, read 26,884,779 times
Reputation: 15995
The law will be struck down.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 11:44 AM
 
5,590 posts, read 2,056,208 times
Reputation: 7082
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
My question is if you believe states should impose rules to target a specific candidate?
No, of course not. I was citing a 9th circuit ruling on this. States can make up ballot admission rules as long as those rules apply equally to all applicants and parties.

Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
It doesn't permit the states to violate the constitution.

A state cannot say that you must be 40 to appear on the ballot as president instead of 35 prescribed by the constitution. What California is doing is targeting a candidate for partisan purposes by adding a new qualification or you get left off the ballot.
There is no violation of the Constitution here. Constitution provides two separate clauses: The federal minimum qualifications to serve, and the state's absolute right to select electors in any manner of its choosing.

It says the minimum qualifications to serve in office are age 35 and a natural born citizen. It also grants states the exclusive right to choose electors in any manner they choose. They are two separate but equal provisions. The state can say, "We will assign no electors to any candidate who does not provide tax forms." And that would be fully constitutional.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 11:50 AM
 
Location: Richmond,VA
3,246 posts, read 2,097,750 times
Reputation: 2383
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer View Post
Do we have to show valid id to vote too?

Yeah, it's amazing dRATs are fine with objecting to voters providing a simple ID to cast a ballot but want presidential candidates to show 5 years worth of tax returns.


BTW, when do we to see Nancy Pelosi and The Squad's tax returns?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 11:55 AM
 
20,380 posts, read 9,915,672 times
Reputation: 4427
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeaMaj7 View Post
Unseal Obama's college application forms and grades!

they are not, nor have they ever been, "sealed". they are private records protected under FERPA laws.


it's unlikely that his application records still exist. occidental college's record retention schedule ( available in PDF online ) shows they only retain application info for 5years past when the student last attended ( i'm pretty confident that trump was aware of this fact when he specifically demanded them ).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 11:58 AM
 
20,380 posts, read 9,915,672 times
Reputation: 4427
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon View Post
The law might be unconstitutional due to putting requirements not within the constitution.

it's my guess that this law will be rejected once challenged in court ( same as when the birthers demanded that a "long-form" birth certificate be required to be on the ballot ).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:03 PM
 
Location: Russia
101 posts, read 10,623 times
Reputation: 58
There are a lot of things about California that are embarrassing, this is another one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:18 PM
 
5,590 posts, read 2,056,208 times
Reputation: 7082
"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
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:22 PM
 
9,648 posts, read 5,974,230 times
Reputation: 6570
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon View Post
"This remains a terrible, anti-democratic idea and California should be embarrassed (sic)." -Nate Silver

California's governor signed into law that you can't appear on the California ballot for president unless you hand over the past 5 years of tax returns to the California Attorney General.

The law might be unconstitutional due to putting requirements not within the constitution.


Would Democrats be fine with other limitations? Obama wouldn't release grades and test scores - could Texas make that a requirement to be on the ballot? We want an intellectually sound leader after all, don't we?
This is absolutely necessary.


I've always said the presidential candidate should at the very least:

1. Take and release the score from an IQ test. One can take up to ten tests and release the highest score.

2. Pass a basic high-school level exam on government and US history.

3. Release their tax returns.

4. Has a hard cap on campaign spending. So we can compare each candidate's money management.


Think about it, we know more about an NBA draft pick than than the presidential candidate. More data will help the voters make better decision.

.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top