SIGforum.com Main Page The Lounge Is this legal (Federally)? --- New Jersey Senate passes bill to keep President Trump off 2020 ballot unless he releases tax returns
Main Page The Lounge Is this legal (Federally)? --- New Jersey Senate passes bill to keep President Trump off 2020 ballot unless he releases tax returnsGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
Info Guru |
Is it legal? I went down the rabbit hole on the internet reading articles on both sides and after emerging, the answer appears to be - SCOTUS will decide. Lot's of arguments on both sides. My opinion, for what it's worth, I don't see how they could require more than the constitution requires of candidates. I get the arguments on the other side, but if you allow those restrictions - you could come up with a ton of others that would start an ugly trend. “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” - John Adams | |||
|
| Member |
Does anybody need New Jersey to Win? Trump doesn't have a chance in NJ so who cares. It's just more Trump Derangement Syndrone- This is meaningless but they feel better doing it.
https://www.270towin.com/states/New_Jersey ____________________________________________________ The butcher with the sharpest knife has the warmest heart. | |||
|
| Rock Paper Scissors Lizard Spock  |
Well, what if one of the swing states that went trump in the election NOW passes a law like this based on that precedent? Hell, Colorado is a lost cause too, even though I live here. James in Denver ---------------------------- "Voldemorte himself created his worst enemy, just as tyrants everywhere do! Have you any idea how much tyrants fear the people they oppress? All of them realize that, one day, amongst their many victims, there is sure to be one who rises against them and strikes back!" Book 6 - Ch 23 | |||
|
| Member |
I did time in NJ. There's a reason why it looks like an armpit. Why don't they just outlaw his name while they'e at it? ____________________________________________________ The butcher with the sharpest knife has the warmest heart. | |||
|
"Member" |
Why'd they stop there? They should have passed the law that you have to be a Democrat.  _____________________________________________________ Sliced bread, the greatest thing since the 1911. | |||
|
Tinker Sailor Soldier Pie |
Say what? ~Alan Acta Non Verba NRA Life Member (Patron) God, Family, Guns, Country Men will fight and die to protect women... because women protect everything else. ~Andrew Klavan | |||
|
| Info Guru |
The argument is that since the states decide how to apportion the electors from their state - in other words, you do not have a right to vote for president, the states apportion electors based on state laws. A state could allow their legislature to apportion the electors based on a vote in the legislature, not by popular vote (though no state does this currently). Since it's legal for the state to choose how they apportion electors, theoretically they could set any standard they want. For example, if they chose someone under 35 and sent their electors to vote in the Electoral College, the College could reject those votes because the person does not meet the age requirement. Under this theory, the states could set whatever restrictions they wanted to set and it's up to the Electoral College to sort it out. I don't agree with this theory, but there it is - SCOTUS will have to decide if it goes that far. NJ is not the only state trying this - and it does matter even though NJ is not going to vote for Trump. It's a critical precedent that needs to be categorically rejected. “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” - John Adams | |||
|
| Rock Paper Scissors Lizard Spock |
Colorado will most likely pass a law that says our "electors" must vote with who ever wins the popular vote regardless of who wins the state....seriously... and with the dems in control, it will pass. As per the news, it would only go into effect if X other states do the same. James ---------------------------- "Voldemorte himself created his worst enemy, just as tyrants everywhere do! Have you any idea how much tyrants fear the people they oppress? All of them realize that, one day, amongst their many victims, there is sure to be one who rises against them and strikes back!" Book 6 - Ch 23 | |||
|
| An investment in knowledge pays the best interest |
Blatantly unconstitutional and wouldn’t make it past SCOTUS, but the Commies on the loose will try another to keep/gain power. | |||
|
| Muzzle flash aficionado  |
Not every state uses the "all or nothing" approach to Electors (where the popular plurality awards all the Electors to the winner). A few have a proportional approach, where the Electors are expected to vote for the winner in their own Congressional District; the Electors for the Senators both go to the overall state winner. This arrangement has so far been accepted by SCOTUS as OK. I don't think SCOTUS would go along with a plan that totally removes all input from the state's voters from the process, however. flashguy Texan by choice, not accident of birth | |||
|
| Big Stack |
You say this based on what? Certainly not the US Constitution, which allows the states to apportion there electoral votes however they choose (as stated correctly above.)
| |||
|
| Tinker Sailor Soldier Pie |
Yeah, but that proportional approach is based on the votes cast within the state by citizens of that state. That doesn't seem to fly in the face of the original intent of the electoral college unlike this diabolical scheme that these lefty states are intent on carrying out. It would never pass constitutional muster. Or shouldn't. ~Alan Acta Non Verba NRA Life Member (Patron) God, Family, Guns, Country Men will fight and die to protect women... because women protect everything else. ~Andrew Klavan | |||
|
Lighten up and laugh |
You mean as long as each state doesn't require ID, right? | |||
|
| Info Guru |
Which constitution are you referring to?  This is actually constitutional. States can choose to apportion electors based on a coin toss if they want to. The constitution explicitly says that states have exclusive control on how they want to apportion electors for president. Bush v Gore specifically addressed the individual right to vote for president: https://www.law.cornell.edu/su...html/00-949.ZPC.html
Colorado did not hold a presidential election as recently as 1876. “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” - John Adams | |||
|
Member |
NJ is losing its wealthy too. The number of millionaires living in the Northern New Jersey/New York area shrank last year by 5,700 according to NorthJersey.com. The definition of the wealthy individuals is people with liquid assets of $1 million to $30 million. ______________________________________________ Life is short. It’s shorter with the wrong gun… | |||
|
| Member |
Don't these ass clowns have any real work to do? Oh wait, never mind. I remembered who we were talking about. "The days are stacked against what we think we are." Jim Harrison | |||
|
| His diet consists of black coffee, and sarcasm.  |
Forgive a little naivete here. What do people expect anybody's tax returns to show?  They made X amount of money and paid X amount of taxes. So what? | |||
|
| Freethinker |
When Nixon’s tax return(s) was/were (illegally) leaked by an IRS employee many controversial deductions relating to real estate issues and the donation of his vice presidential papers were revealed. Although not challenged by the IRS at the time, the small sums he paid in taxes as a result gave the BS media another stick to beat him with. In Trump’s case, though, merely because he made some specific amount of money would be enough to keep the Left and its media minions furiously occupied until the next election, but it’s also possible that his returns would also show things like deductions that could be challenged if revealed. ► 6.4/93.6 “It is peace for our time.” — Neville the Appeaser | |||
|
Sigforum K9 handler |
We are to the point where the dems can not run on anything they have done, or anything they are about to do. They are openly the party of socialism, high taxes, and division. They are desperate to stay in power, despite their platform and personalities are making their days numbered. The tricks that are being pulled, and the ones that will be coming in the future will ensure that there is a shooting war in this country. It is not if, but when. | |||
|
| Member |
There is a huge difference between a coin toss and revealing private financial data. By your reasoning, races or national heritage could be used to exclude candidate, or sex, etc. You could also say no one on the ballot unless they accept 5 homeless people into their homes. I don't see this as constitutional, as people have a right to security of their property and papers. Waiver of constitutional rights as a pre-requisite is a huge fail, like literacy tests at the polls. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
SIGforum.com Main Page The Lounge Is this legal (Federally)? --- New Jersey Senate passes bill to keep President Trump off 2020 ballot unless he releases tax returns
Main Page The Lounge Is this legal (Federally)? --- New Jersey Senate passes bill to keep President Trump off 2020 ballot unless he releases tax returns© SIGforum 2025