Yes, but why is it that we find ourselves with a dog that is not barking?
Because the laws proposed are to help the cause of getting Trump out of office, only dressed up in either lesser or slightly more amounts of garb. The cause here isn’t improving government ethics; the cause here is that Trump is unethical.
Fine, this doesn’t really dispute anything I’ve said.
Only Trump, among all presidents and even candidates in the last 40 years, has provided probable cause of financial crimes. Laws aren’t needed until they’re needed, right?
Yes, the purpose *is *to improve government ethics. It does not help to claim it’s personality-driven, implying it’s just like the way his Democrat-hate is personality-driven, especially not when you also claim the probable cause exists. You’re straining hard to be able to claim butbothsidesdoit, unfortunately the facts just don’t support that.
Are you really telling us that laws against stealing are *not *about punishing and deterring stealing? They’re essentially just about manufacturing excuses to imprison people? If that’s truly what you mean, then wow.
The new rules appear to only discriminate against those who do not wish to divulge their tax information to American voters and I don’t believe they are a protected class.
“protected class” and “a class of candidates” are two separate things. In the cite provided by Lord Feldon, the “class of candidates” are candidates who refused to pledge to support term limits. That’s not a “protected class” in the non-discrimination normal usage of that phrase, but it was still an unconstitutional limit a state placed on federal candidates’ (of a certain class) ballot access.
Felons are, in fact, prohibited from holding public office.
This is false.
Keeping Trump off the ballot in California does nothing one way or the other to get Trump out of office.
The purpose of the law is to provide Trump an incentive to release his tax returns
I just think it’s a good idea all around. Start with presidential candidates, see how that goes and then work down to Senators, Representatives, Governors and such.
There’s way too much funny business going on, and Tax Return transparency might help keep crooks away.
Would you still feel it was a good idea if it was not implemented until 2024 to avoid the appearance of targeting a particular candidate?
Sure. It would have been a good idea decades ago, and it will still be a good idea decades from now.
Certainly not the position taken in an analysis of the issue by the Congressional Research Service.
Per the Congressional Research Service report for Congress entitled Congressional Candidacy, Incarceration, and the Constitution’s Inhabitancy Qualification
Well, looks like California is diving head first into this idea to keep Trump off the ballot.
I suspect this will age about as well as Harry Reid’s decision to go nuclear in the Senate
I think the CA thing is a bad idea if one presumes that we live in a reasonably well-functioning democratic (small d) system. But if one is one of the opinion that this is generally bullshit, and we’re in a political no-holds-barred knife fight, then this makes sense.
I used to believe the former pretty solidly; I’m no longer nearly as confident. We’ll see. Very possibly unconstitutional, in my unprofessional opinion, but I don’t think that really matters much any more – what matters is which judges see it. More and more I think we’re in a system that rewards whoever can successfully bypass and maneuver around the law, rather than whether what they do is actually in accordance with the law.
The California law only requires tax returns to be on the primary ballot, not the general election ballot. That might be enough to avoid constitutional issues, since primaries are an invention of political parties and aren’t mentioned in the Constitution.
All I can say is if Kamala Harris wins the nomination, I hope she has her original birth certificate.
I think I’ll run in the Republican primary here in California. If I win, I can go to the convention and make fart sounds on a bull horn whenever Trump speaks. Then I’ll offer him my delegates if he agrees to sit in the corner and behave until the convention is over.
I agree that it’s a bad idea, but for different reasons. It doesn’t matter I’m this particular case whether a judge finds the law unconstitutional. An election where Trump was otherwise going to win California without this law would probably be a beating the likes of which we haven’t seen since Reagan vs. Mondale in 1984.
What really matters is how voters, legislatures, and governors in swing states see this law. This basically provides a reason to start a ballot access arms race. Next up might be a law in Wisconsin or Arizona or Georgia that in order to be on the ballot you have to be pro life.
ETA. In case it isn’t clear, I’m imagining a law that applied to candidates for all races, not just the POTUS election.
This is very possible. But we might as well test this in court to see if this stuff is going to be deemed as allowable. If so, at least we’ll understand how broken our system truly is, and it will be more widely apparent to all.
More likely, I’m thinking of things like poll taxes or literacy tests in the Old South or requirements that statewide office holders have to win a majority of legislative districts if they don’t get 50% (I believe the Mississippi Constitution of 1890 enacted this law, and it’s still on the books). Remember that the Supreme Court has basically told Blacks in particular that they’re on their own now when it comes to voting rights.