Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Oh, right. Like Republicans won't violate whatever the fuck they want and spit in the face of the Constitution otherwise in order to maintain power.

GTFOH.

TM

Arizona legislature apparently passed a bill that to be on the ballot a candidate had to produce a US birth certificate- guess which year this was? The governor vetoed it, so yes R's will try to screw with the D candidate, but that's my point. I would suggest every D (and everyone who wants the country to not be even more fucked) would want the Cali law to be unconstitutional, cuz if it is fine, then the nonsense Rs come up with will also be fine.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

If California requires that anyone who wants to run for office provide their tax returns, that may be a requirement that isn't in the Constitution (like the others I just listed), but it doesn't prevent anyone from running. Hell, I would argue the other two examples are more restrictive.

TM

the restrictive thing does make sense. The SCt case I cited was throwing out something way more restrictive (term limits). I guess we will see.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Or, you could read the Complaint. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/23/trum...x-returns.html

LessinSanIgnacio, Belize

That's a different complaint.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

On a politics chatting board where all the socks were complaining about gerrymandering cuz so many state legislatures are R dominated, it seems a bit short sighted to cheer a world where Cali does something to fuck with Trump.

I've only been weighing in on constitutionality of California's action.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Arizona legislature apparently passed a bill that to be on the ballot a candidate had to produce a US birth certificate- guess which year this was? The governor vetoed it, so yes R's will try to screw with the D candidate, but that's my point. I would suggest every D (and everyone who wants the country to not be even more fucked) would want the Cali law to be unconstitutional, cuz if it is fine, then the nonsense Rs come up with will also be fine.

The Rs are coming up with lots of nonsense. The biggest issue in California's case is just this, that the Supreme's decide to use the California case to establish law that lets Georgia or North Carolina do some really nasty shit. And those states are becoming a bluer shade of purple.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Arizona legislature apparently passed a bill that to be on the ballot a candidate had to produce a US birth certificate- guess which year this was? The governor vetoed it, so yes R's will try to screw with the D candidate, but that's my point. I would suggest every D (and everyone who wants the country to not be even more fucked) would want the Cali law to be unconstitutional, cuz if it is fine, then the nonsense Rs come up with will also be fine.

The idea that Republicans will act rationally because Democrats act rationally is fucking ridiculous.

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

The idea that Republicans will act rationally because Democrats act rationally is fucking ridiculous.

TM

I'm saying if Cali proves it IS constitutional, then there will be no stopping the R legislatures. The Court is really the only place to stop them, and if Cali can ask for tax returns, then Arizona can ask for, say, 23 and me results to be on the ballot (so we know how much Native American Warren is). BUT IF Cali is found to have exceeded the constitution then one can expect a challenge to the next hair brained R scheme would also knock the scheme out. I'm not saying the R will act rationally; to the contrary, and the Court is about the only hope.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I'm saying if Cali proves it IS constitutional, then there will be no stopping the R legislatures. The Court is really the only place to stop them, and if Cali can ask for tax returns, then Arizona can ask for, say, 23 and me results to be on the ballot (so we know how much Native American Warren is). BUT IF Cali is found to have exceeded the constitution then one can expect a challenge to the next hair brained R scheme would also knock the scheme out. I'm not saying the R will act rationally; to the contrary, and the Court is about the only hope.

First, asking for tax returns doesn't restrict anyone from running. It's a hurdle, not a bar, in the same way getting signatures is a hurdle. Every American citizen can produce their tax returns.

If you want to argue that states will begin requiring birth certificates, that point is taken. Hell, I would argue that such a requirement is actually consistent with the Constitutional requirements. But demanding 23 and Me results is not in line with the Constitution and, in fact, sits in direct opposition.

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

First, asking for tax returns doesn't restrict anyone from running. It's a hurdle, not a bar, in the same way getting signatures is a hurdle. Every American citizen can produce their tax returns.

If you want to argue that states will begin requiring birth certificates, that point is taken. Hell, I would argue that such a requirement is actually consistent with the Constitutional requirements. But demanding 23 and Me results is not in line with the Constitution and, in fact, sits in direct opposition.

TM

I was being facetious as to 23 and Me. But you shouldn’t start evaluating restrictions or barriers. maybe the Court will with thx returns, but I think it a mistake. The signatures and fees you mention earlier are a way of trying to have a ballot with a reasonable number of candidates, which probably does violate something, but if all one had to do was ask to be on a ballot that would be one long list.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

First, asking for tax returns doesn't restrict anyone from running. It's a hurdle, not a bar, in the same way getting signatures is a hurdle. Every American citizen can produce their tax returns.

If you want to argue that states will begin requiring birth certificates, that point is taken. Hell, I would argue that such a requirement is actually consistent with the Constitutional requirements. But demanding 23 and Me results is not in line with the Constitution and, in fact, sits in direct opposition.

TM

Sure there will be stopping the other legislatures. But they will be stopped two or three steps further than California.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

The idea that Republicans will act rationally because Democrats act rationally is fucking ridiculous.

TM

Truer words were never spoken.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Have you seen the exchange between Tribe and Lessig on this? Lessig's view is it is unconstitutional, Tribe's view is that it is constitutional.

Of course, Tribe is a star constitutional lawyer with over thirty appearances before the supreme court and a dozen well-regarded treatises, while Lessig... tweets alot.

I have not seen their exchange. I would like to. eta: Very interesting.

I would not argue about constitutional law with Lessig. He is one the smartest people I have ever met.

As I tried to suggest with my original post, I'm inclined to think Trump's position is right, but I'm not certain of it. I'd like to see the good arguments on the other side. Just telling me that Tribe sees it one way and Lessig sees it another only suggests to me that it's a hard question.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Yes you are.

No, I really wasn't, but now I see.

If California can require a fee that is higher than Illinois' to be put on a ballot, that is a requirement that isn't in the Constitution. Not only that, but it is a rule that isn't consistently applied across states.

If California can require that you obtain a certain number of signatures before you're allowed to be put on the ballot, that is a requirement that isn't in the Constitution.

If California requires that anyone who wants to run for office provide their tax returns, that may be a requirement that isn't in the Constitution (like the others I just listed), but it doesn't prevent anyone from running. Hell, I would argue the other two examples are more restrictive.

I think there's a real difference between the process requirements to get on the ballot -- filing fees, number of signatures -- and a requirement that goes to the substance of how citizens make the decision about whom to vote for. No one thinks that the filing fee or signatures are going to be material to a voter's decision. The point of the tax-return requirement is precisely that California thinks it should be material to a voter's decision about whom to elect. And the Constitution does not say that.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Arizona legislature apparently passed a bill that to be on the ballot a candidate had to produce a US birth certificate- guess which year this was? The governor vetoed it, so yes R's will try to screw with the D candidate, but that's my point. I would suggest every D (and everyone who wants the country to not be even more fucked) would want the Cali law to be unconstitutional, cuz if it is fine, then the nonsense Rs come up with will also be fine.

That's interesting and harder, because the Constitution does require the President to be a naturally born citizen.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I would not argue about constitutional law with Lessig. He is one the smartest people I have ever met.

I’ll allow this, but only because of the “one of” qualifier.

And I will note that one can only evaluate intelligence from above. If you are of lesser intelligence you can only say “him smart.” Are you implying you are smarter than this person? Because if so he is definitely not the smartest you’ve met AND I am most certainly qualified to make that statement.