California introduces bill forcing presidential candidates to release taxes

a reply to: Phage

What did this audit show? Some margin of error? I glanced through the portion of opinion you cited and it wasn't really clear.

So what SHOULD the data show...if it wasn't so flawed?

And what is the margin of error?

ETA: And what's the evidence that there is this long time flaw in the system...(well systemS since you suggest it's a wholly unique algorithm in separate state systems...or something like that)?

You haven't shown any evidence the system is broken. You've shown vague opinion and bad logic.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

What did this audit show?

It showed that the output was not reliable. It did not provide a margin of error.

So what SHOULD the data show...if it wasn't so flawed?

Speculation is your department.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MotherMayEye

What did this audit show?

It showed that the output was not reliable. It did not provide a margin of error.

So what SHOULD the data show...if it wasn't so flawed?

Speculation is your department.

Are you suggesting the system has been operating for 15 years and it's only 17% accurate?

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire

originally posted by: Jiggly
cali always vote dems anyways, who cares

bollox

1943-1953 Earl Warren Republican
1953-1959 Goodwin Knight Republican
1967-1975 Ronald Reagan Republican
1983-1991 George Deukmejian Republican
1991-1999 Pete Wilson Republican
2003-2011 Arnold Schwarzenegger Republican

I believe the point was in a presidential election . That is what the topic is about , yes ?

Thanks goth, and or course you are right, the thread is about presidential elections. It's just that I sometimes get triggered by mindless bipartisan drivel that bears little resemblance to reality.

a reply to: opecz

Ironic... They want candidates to discloses taxes yet refuse to require id for people to vote. They bitch about Trumps travel ban being unconstitutional yet wont allow state employees to travel to several conservative states over the bathroom bs.

Can California be anymore bassackwards?

Maybe CA should also require Presidential candidates to also release their birth certificates and college transcripts.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Bluntone22
I wonder how this will get by the legal system. Other than California's system anyway.

Ever hear of the Tenth Amendment?

You do know the presidential requirements are listed in the constitution right?

That must be why I mentioned the age requirement in Article II.

Ok, so you agree there are constitutional standards set for presidents. The 10th amendment you mentioned doesn't allow states to circumvent constitutional laws.

If passed, this law will never survive the scotus, and it will indeed end up there.

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Bluntone22
I wonder how this will get by the legal system. Other than California's system anyway.

Ever hear of the Tenth Amendment?

You do know the presidential requirements are listed in the constitution right?

That must be why I mentioned the age requirement in Article II.

Ok, so you agree there are constitutional standards set for presidents. The 10th amendment you mentioned doesn't allow states to circumvent constitutional laws.

If passed, this law will never survive the scotus, and it will indeed end up there.

And under the Tenth Amendment, since there is no provision for Federal statute, conducting Primaries are the purview of the States; they can make laws as they wish.

However, the law at question is not about age, but about Tax Returns ... which we established earlier would likely fail under the Fourth.

a reply to: Gryphon66

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (93-1456), 514 U.S. 779 (1995).

States cant use ballot access to impose additional requirements on candidates.

a reply to: Xcathdra

It seems that case, as its title says, is about specifying qualifications for office which are contrary to the Constitution. That was an attempt by a state legislature to override the Constitutional authority of Congress.

That's not what this is.

"The people of Arkansas find and declare that elected officials who remain in office too long become preoccupied with reelection and ignore their duties as representatives of the people. Entrenched incumbency has reduced voter participation and has led to an electoral system that is less free, less competitive, and less representative than the system established by the Founding Fathers. Therefore, the people of Arkansas, exercising their reserved powers, herein limit the terms of the elected officials."

The Constitution (and Congress) specifies term limits. It does not specify the requirements for being placed on the ballot. States do that.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire

originally posted by: Jiggly
cali always vote dems anyways, who cares

bollox

1943-1953 Earl Warren Republican
1953-1959 Goodwin Knight Republican
1967-1975 Ronald Reagan Republican
1983-1991 George Deukmejian Republican
1991-1999 Pete Wilson Republican
2003-2011 Arnold Schwarzenegger Republican

Strange you would put that list within the context of presidential candidates/races which I believe is what the OP is about.

a reply to: Alien Abduct
It's a little tricky. But follow the threadline.
Earlier there was this post:

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Templeton

If you are in California and you are not a leftist, you should have done that years ago!

It followed from there.


So, the idea (in that post) was that California is a "leftest" state. If the situation were that simple it would seem odd that the gubernatorial history is what it is.

a reply to: Alien Abduct
Yes. However that poster was making a broad and mindlessly partisan statement about how Californians always vote. i was pointing out how incorrect that is.

Here is why this bill is a big failure. California can ask for tax returns to be on the ballot. That pretty much is not debatable. But California does not have the authority to release the contents of those tax returns to the General Public. If those contents were to be leaked to the Press I'm sure that not only could the candidate have a huge lawsuit against the state of California but criminal charges could private be brought too. So I'm not sure what California is trying to prove against this. Tax returns are not public record. The only way they can be public record is if a candidate chooses to release them. And no there is no way that California could require a candidate to publicly release private information. Any lawyer could pick this apart in 5 minutes and it's just another waste of time by the Liberals. So sad

a reply to: Arizonaguy

Yup. The Fourth Amendment will be the biggest hurdle. That's been pointed out.

But it's also been suggested that, since being on the ballot is voluntary, waiving privacy would be part of the package.

a reply to: Phage

Yeah...didn't read through it all...just pointing out the obvious

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Arizonaguy

Yup. The Fourth Amendment will be the biggest hurdle. That's been pointed out.

But it's also been suggested that, since being on the ballot is voluntary, waiving privacy would be part of the package.

It will be interesting to see how all the legal aspwcts play out

a reply to: Arizonaguy

Well, it isn't law as yet.

a reply to: Phage

Indeed.

a reply to: Arizonaguy

I think it's an audacious (hilarious) move.

Yep, as nation we just be spinning in circles unfortunately