Do you think this helps conservatives?

donner · Aug 1, 2019

JD8 said:
Where is the financial status requirement laid out in The Constitution?

Obviously there is not one. But then again there aren’t constitutional rules about needing signatures to get on the ballot either, yet those rules exist at the state level. Clearly the constitution says what minimums are required so that a person CAN be president.

And as I said, the law seems to apply equally for people seeking to be on the presidential ballot in California. As was noted above, there is no test to see how much money you have to qualify, merely the act of releasing the document.

Nothing in the California law would (seem to) negate trump (or any candidate) from being president. He or she would just have a harder time if the candidates opts out of releasing the document, which would be a choice on that person’s part.

The courts may see it as a burden. I never said otherwise. But you still haven’t shown how it discrinates against trump simply because he doesn’t want to release the filings.

ConstitutionCowboy · Aug 1, 2019

donner said:
but weren't we just told states don't have rights?

By beyond that, i am not sold that it'd 'return those stolen rights' for two reasons. One, they weren't stolen, the process was changed under the prescribed system. And two, the system wasn't functioning as intended when the 17th was passed. The people elected as senators weren't beholden to the state, but to the people in charge of the party in control of the state, which was a big reason for the passage of the 17th IIRC.

States have powers, not rights. Only people have rights. It's the same on the federal level. The Federal Government only has powers. When the federal government usurps something beyond what it has been granted or prohibited to it by the Constitution, it usurps power from the states or from the rights of the people.

Woody

inactive · Aug 1, 2019

ConstitutionCowboy said:
For all intents and purposes, the Senate would no longer have a left wing nor a right wing. There’d be no senatorial campaigning; ergo, no “campaign contributions” coming from out-of-state interests.

Your state would have a voice in Congress, supporting and protecting your state’s sovereign powers(the Tenth Amendment)
...
The senators would have to answer directly to their individual state governments. Senators would be sent to DC with marching orders.

I don't believe for a second that any of that idealistic fairy tale would happen.

donner · Aug 1, 2019

Cards81fan said:
I don't believe for a second that any of that idealistic fairy tale would happen.

Spoiler... it didn’t work like that the first time around either

ConstitutionCowboy · Aug 1, 2019

Cards81fan said:
But take the power of electing senators away from We the Capitalist People? Why would we take a voting power the We the Capitalist People reclaimed and give it back to any government body (specifically in this case, state legislatures)?

For the reasons I state here:

I am, and have been all along, for repealing the 17th Amendment. Your state legislature would once again appoint your senators. For all intents and purposes, the Senate would no longer have a left wing nor a right wing. There’d be no senatorial campaigning; ergo, no “campaign contributions” coming from out-of-state interests.

Your state would have a voice in Congress, supporting and protecting your state’s sovereign powers(the Tenth Amendment).

There would be a check on the interests of certain parties that support governmental charity(commonly called “welfare”) to secure a voting block by placing a road block on such legislation on the national scale. A political party wishing to secure such a block of voters could not long support such a block when all those who earn money a state must confiscate(tax) to support that block move to a state where no such taxes exist. When a political party can move that support to the national level, people and businesses in all states are taxed and there is no state to move to to escape such taxes.

Repealing the 17th Amendment will restore competition between the several states, affording the people choices beyond climate and will force the able to support themselves and limit “welfare”(tax supported charity) to only the truly needy.

As for the states that had trouble appointing someone and leaving an empty seat for a time, who cares! If they were that indecisive to begin with, there would be no sense in sending in anyone in the first place until they CAN make up their minds!

As for the lobbyists having to “make the rounds” courting state legislators instead of hangin’ out in DC courting senators, I’m all for that!

The senators would have to answer directly to their individual state governments. Senators would be sent to DC with marching orders. I see no reason a state couldn’t recall an errant senator as well.

Woody

ConstitutionCowboy · Aug 1, 2019

Cards81fan said:
I don't believe for a second that any of that idealistic fairy tale would happen.

It was realistic before the Seventeenth Amendment came along. It needs to be restored.

Woody

JD8 · Aug 1, 2019

donner said:
Obviously there is not one

There ya go. Stop there. Don't care about the whataboutism of other states. Never said I agree with any of said laws, only that their existence doesn't justify this one.

And as I said, the law seems to apply equally for people seeking to be on the presidential ballot in California. As was noted above, there is no test to see how much money you have to qualify, merely the act of releasing the document.

For what use? What purpose? Let's forget that this is a political weapon, we all know that. Where does it stop?

donner · Aug 2, 2019

JD8 said:
There ya go. Stop there. Don't care about the whataboutism of other states. Never said I agree with any of said laws, only that their existence doesn't justify this one.

For what use? What purpose? Let's forget that this is a political weapon, we all know that. Where does it stop?

Sorry, it's not really a 'whataboutism' since it does, in fact, directly work against your point. There exist laws in every state that go beyond what is said in the constitution and that they have been allowed to stand. I'm not saying it's good, bad or anything else, just that they are there, whether you agree with them or not. Just because you, me, trump or anyone else doesn't like (or agree) with the law, doesn't mean it is unconstitutional.

And regarding purpose, well, i didn't write it so i can't say for sure. I have thoughts on why it might be good to know such information, but i can't say for certain if that was the purpose, or not. Nor must i say where it will stop. I didn't write it not am i defending creating the law. I'm just arguing against the 'oh it must be unconstitutional' stuff (though i have admitted many times that it certainly might be).

JD8 · Aug 2, 2019

donner said:
Sorry, it's not really a 'whataboutism' since it does, in fact, directly work against your point. There exist laws in every state that go beyond what is said in the constitution and that they have been allowed to stand. I'm not saying it's good, bad or anything else, just that they are there, whether you agree with them or not. Just because you, me, trump or anyone else doesn't like (or agree) with the law, doesn't mean it is unconstitutional.

I'm not saying it's unconstitutional because I disagree with it, I'm saying I question it because it is discriminatory, especially in it's intent as they are trying to control who will be on the ballot, and it's definitely not a requirement laid forth by the Constitution. Finally, how far do we go here? Imagine the uproar if we required genetic testing results to be disclosed to be on a ballot? Apologize for it all you want, but it's a stupid game they a playing.

With regard to the insistence on the whataboutism. It certainly is, because this particular issue has not been legally tested. Now if you insist it's the same on your criteria.... then... I certainly hope you have the conviction here to defend any "Assault Rifle" ban employed by the democrats going forward. I mean, other states have those laws, they've been allowed to stand, and The Constitution doesn't name them specifically.

donner · Aug 2, 2019

and, for the record, i could easily see a court saying this has a chilling effect or places an undue burden on a candidate, too. But i don't think the 'only affects Trump' argument is the one that would strike it down, though could certainly be wrong about that, as well.

Do you think this helps conservatives?

donner

Sharpshooter

ConstitutionCowboy

Sharpshooter

inactive

Sharpshooter

donner

Sharpshooter

ConstitutionCowboy

Sharpshooter

ConstitutionCowboy

Sharpshooter

JD8

Sharpshooter

donner

Sharpshooter

JD8

Sharpshooter

donner

Sharpshooter

Similar threads

Latest posts

Do you think this helps conservatives?

Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

Similar threads

Join the conversation!

Join today and get all the highlights of this community direct to your inbox. It's FREE!