Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: Illinois Senate Tells Trump, Show Your Tax Returns Or Be Barred From The 2020 Ballot

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Saturday, January 3rd, 2015
    Last Online
    Today @ 8:56 AM
    Posts
    11,098
    Post Thanks / Like

    Illinois Senate Tells Trump, Show Your Tax Returns Or Be Barred From The 2020 Ballot

    If this isn't illegal, it should be. What other conditions can a state set to run for president? Hey, don't like the 35 year old minimum age? Well, set it to 55 or you won't get on the ballot.

    This should be ruled unconstitutional, IMO.

    The Democratic-led Illinois Senate voted Thursday to compel President Trump to release five years’ worth of his personal income tax returns or be barred from appearing on the state’s presidential ballot next year.

    The state is joining a movement of other Democratic states that aims to force the president to open up his personal finances by releasing his tax returns, something he stubbornly has refused to do and reiterated again this week.

    During contentious floor debate in the Illinois statehouse, Trump’s name wasn’t mentioned once by the legislation’s sponsor, state Sen. Tony Munoz, a Chicago Democrat who insisted he merely is trying to shed more transparency on the presidential campaign.

    “If you want to run for vice president or president of the United States, hey, what’s wrong with providing your tax returns for the past five years?” Munoz asked his colleagues ahead of the Senate’s 36-19 vote in favor of his bill.

    “If you’ve got nothing to hide, you shouldn’t worry about anything,” he continued. “That’s how I see it.”
    Mark
    Race Card: A tool of the intellectually weak and lazy when they cannot counter a logical argument or factual data.

    "Liberals have to stop insisting that the world is what they want it to be instead of the way it is." - Bill Maher

    Political correctness is ideological fascism. It’s the antithesis of freedom. Dr. Piper

    Gender is not a "Social Construct", it is an outgrowth of biological reality.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Friday, November 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 10:18 AM
    Posts
    8,856
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by 80zephyr View Post
    If this isn't illegal, it should be. What other conditions can a state set to run for president? Hey, don't like the 35 year old minimum age? Well, set it to 55 or you won't get on the ballot.

    This should be ruled unconstitutional, IMO.



    Mark
    What a fascinating idea, that any state legislature should be allowed to list on its ballots only the candidates it chooses. I like this one:

    Any candidate who won't reveal his or her college records shall not be listed!




    Maybe IL will list no Republican candidates. To hell with them. Maybe the state should decide that any candidate who supports policies contrary to that state's laws cannot be on the ballot.

    The possibilities are entertaining.

    The reality is, this is a rejection of the democratic process. They should name it The Elections Shmelections bill.


    The Stupid is strong in this one.
    "We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them." —CNN's Don Lemon, showing how to stop demonizing people.

  3. Likes scott, 80zephyr liked this post
  4. #3
    Join Date
    Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    13,385
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Newman View Post
    The reality is, this is a rejection of the democratic process.

    Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
    Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.


    Yes. Yes, it is.
    People who treat other people as less than human must not be surprised when the bread they have cast on the waters comes floating back to them, poisoned.

    ~ James Baldwin

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 22nd, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 10:39 AM
    Posts
    13,047
    Post Thanks / Like
    Oh, now they're all concerned about the popular vote for president.

    On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
    -H. L. Mencken

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Saturday, October 5th, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    In the mainstream of American life.
    Posts
    14,483
    Post Thanks / Like
    As with anything else, I believe a state cannot have qualifications that contravene or are more restrictive than the US Constitution, so the age thing wouldn't fly. States already have other restrictions that vary from state to state, such as how a candidate qualifies for the ballot (number of signatures, for example).

    I don't know, frankly, if this is legal or not. It should be interesting to watch, and I suppose we'll find out.
    No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. This offer VALID in 35 34 33 32 31 26 20 17 15 14 13 ALL 50 states.

    The new 13 original states to stand up for freedom: CA, CT, IA, MA, DE, MN, NH, NY, RI, VT, ME, MD, NJ (plus DC).

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Friday, November 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 10:18 AM
    Posts
    8,856
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Celeste Chalfonte View Post
    As with anything else, I believe a state cannot have qualifications that contravene or are more restrictive than the US Constitution, so the age thing wouldn't fly. States already have other restrictions that vary from state to state, such as how a candidate qualifies for the ballot (number of signatures, for example).

    I don't know, frankly, if this is legal or not. It should be interesting to watch, and I suppose we'll find out.
    I'm curious as well. I really can't imagine this will pass muster.

    I recall from some distant conversation that political parties are in fact private clubs, who can restrict membership as they see fit. They qualify to get on the ballot by passing through a state's election rules, which can be intentionally diabolical. But can a state decide to allow only a certain number of such private clubs may appear on the ballot?

    Can a state disallow write-in campaigns?

    (Not for nothing, Lisa Murkowski won her write-in campaign after losing the Party primary to an upstart. It's as if Joe Crowley came back and won the November election against AOC.)

    What if a state somehow devised its rules to arrange that only one Party would be on the ballot. All others would be write-ins. Why would that be illegal? Or would it?

    Does our present system depend merely on some common cultural understanding of fair elections?
    "We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them." —CNN's Don Lemon, showing how to stop demonizing people.

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 2:39 AM
    Posts
    12,713
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Newman View Post
    (Not for nothing, Lisa Murkowski won her write-in campaign after losing the Party primary to an upstart.
    Please don't remind me that I was enough of an idiot to write in her name.
    If it pays, it stays

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Friday, November 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 10:18 AM
    Posts
    8,856
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Frostbit View Post
    Please don't remind me that I was enough of an idiot to write in her name.
    Boo hiss!

    Y'know, John McCain got the glory for scotching Repeal & Replace, but Murkowski broke her promise to her constituents and voted against it, too.
    "We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them." —CNN's Don Lemon, showing how to stop demonizing people.

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    13,385
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Newman View Post
    I'm curious as well. I really can't imagine this will pass muster.
    Why not? The power to choose electors by the Several States is plenary.
    People who treat other people as less than human must not be surprised when the bread they have cast on the waters comes floating back to them, poisoned.

    ~ James Baldwin

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Friday, November 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 10:18 AM
    Posts
    8,856
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy Jingo View Post
    Why not? The power to choose electors by the Several States is plenary.
    Common sense tells me the state can't enhance qualifications required of a candidate for federal office.

    The state can require gubernatorial candidates to stand on their heads in a short skirt and whistle Dixie, to be on the ballot; a town might require its mayoral candidates live within walking distance of their Town Hall; but the town can't gin up new requirements for gubernatorial candidates, and the state can't make up hoops for presidential candidates to jump through. That's why Celeste said jiggering with the age requirement is a non-starter, and I suspect the tax disclosure idea is likewise.
    "We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them." —CNN's Don Lemon, showing how to stop demonizing people.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •