California effort to expose Trump's tax return vetoed by governor

Discussion in 'Elections & Campaigns' started by kazenatsu, Oct 19, 2017.

  1. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,619
    Likes Received:
    11,200
    Trophy Points:
    113
    California effort to expose Trump's tax return is vetoed by Governor Jerry Brown

    It was an almost brilliant plan cooked up by the California state legislature earlier this year. In an effort to see what other damage they might be able to inflict upon Donald Trump, legislators put together a bill which would require presidential candidates to release their last five years of tax returns in order to appear on the ballot.

    Having crafted the legislation and completed the requisite ceremony of patting each other on the back, all was in readiness for the Democrats’ victory celebration. That is, at least until they ran into an unexpected wall of opposition. Their own governor, Jerry Brown, has vetoed the bill and sent them back to the drawing board.​



    Yes, he knows this proposed law would most likely backfire in their own faces, and anything the Left might think could tarnish a Republican candidate will most certainly destroy a Democrat one...
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2017
  2. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    27,360
    Likes Received:
    8,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It wouldn't be Constitutional anyway. The Constitution establishes the requirements, not state governments.
     
  3. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,619
    Likes Received:
    11,200
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually it is. The state legislature can send any electors they want.
    So, if they really wanted to, they could effectively set whatever requirements they want, although that would be rolling back somewhat the popular vote. If passed, that would make California the only state to set limits on who its residents can vote for when it comes to the presidential election (aside from the usual requirements of having to make an application and sometimes a fee, and come up with a certain number of signatures).

    In California the current requirement for independent candidates running for President is that they submit signatures from state residents equaling at least 1 percent of the total number of registered voters in the state.
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2017
  4. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    27,360
    Likes Received:
    8,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Electors only apply to the general election and California is irrelevant to the Republican candidate for President.
     
    TrackerSam likes this.
  5. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,619
    Likes Received:
    11,200
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Basically if state law did not approve of a candidate for some reason, people could write-in the candidate's name on the ballot but the state would not have to count those votes, and the state's electors would not have to vote for that candidate, even in the unlikely hypothetical case that candidate won the popular vote in that state. Under the U.S. Constitution the state (or more particularly its legislature effectively) has the ultimate say. If the people can vote for president, it's only because the state law says so. (and currently all 50 states have such a law)

    And of course you are right, California would be irrelevant to another Trump campaign.
    (although nothing is ever absolutely 100% certain)
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2017
  6. Sanskrit

    Sanskrit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2014
    Messages:
    17,082
    Likes Received:
    6,711
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Truth behind this, the crooks in the Cali gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex realized before it was "too late" that this kind of precedent might result in referenda requiring heightened disclosure to the public of THEIR OWN PET SCAMS AND DIRTY LAUNDRY.

    Bank on it.
     

Share This Page