California Senate approves bill requiring presidential candidates to submit tax returns

[airdvr 210]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/04/politics/california-senate-bill-tax-returns/index.html

Why do you waste time and taxpayer's money on something that is clearly unconstitutional?

[gowlerk 2,275]

36 minutes ago, airdvr said:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/04/politics/california-senate-bill-tax-returns/index.html

Why do you waste time and taxpayer's money on something that is clearly unconstitutional?

Like forced birth laws?

[airdvr 210]

If you don't like out laws change them...oops.  Can't do it from Canada.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 5

[turtlespeed 226]

15 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Like forced birth laws?

Yes.

I don't know of anyone posting here in this forum that agrees with the laws you reference.

[gowlerk 2,275]

5 minutes ago, airdvr said:

If you don't like out laws change them...oops.  Can't do it from Canada.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 5

That's okay. Even if forced birth were to become the law of your land the rich men who pass the laws will still be able to send there mistresses up to Canada.

[gowlerk 2,275]

1 minute ago, turtlespeed said:

Yes.

I don't know of anyone posting here in this forum that agrees with the laws you reference.

Yes, but it's not about agreeing. It's about the constitutionality of them.

[turtlespeed 226]

40 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Yes, but it's not about agreeing. It's about the constitutionality of them.

The inference was made by Airdvr that the California senate passing such a law is a waste and unconstitutional.

You wrote, "Like forced birth laws?"

I replied "Yes"

Then I mentioned that no one that I know of supports the law - it was kind of a side note.

And, so, I say again, YES, because neither of them is constitutional.

[JerryBaumchen 1,466]

1 hour ago, airdvr said:

 something that is clearly unconstitutional?

Hi airdvr,

I have never read anywhere that it has been judged unconstitutional.  Now, that does not mean that it has not, it just means I have not read anything like that.

Do you have a cite for this?

Jerry Baumchen

[turtlespeed 226]

5 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi airdvr,

I have never read anywhere that it has been judged unconstitutional.  Now, that does not mean that it has not, it just means I have not read anything like that.

Do you have a cite for this?

Jerry Baumchen

I believe it is too early to have been judged unconstitutional . . . just as the law in Alabama hasn't yet been Judged to be unconstitutional.

That does not mean that the laws aren't - it just means that, sometimes, it takes time to come to the obvious conclusion.

[airdvr 210]

Only my view that it is unconstitutional.  I'm sure a judge will be looking at it if it passes.  Just like forced birth laws.

[JerryBaumchen 1,466]

49 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

That does not mean that the laws aren't 

Hi turtle,

And it also does not mean that the laws are UNconstitutional.

IMO what the OP was posting is an opinion regarding these types of laws, not a factual statement => 'something that is clearly unconstitutional? '

Jerry Baumchen

[yobnoc 142]

I'd say it's likely to hold up constitutionally with the Emoluments clause as a backbone.  How do you tell if someone's violating the Emoluments clause?  Obviously we have a president* who is doing it right under our noses, so the time for the courts to rule on it is upon us.  I hope that we see a reasonable decision.

[turtlespeed 226]

2 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi turtle,

And it also does not mean that the laws are UNconstitutional.

IMO what the OP was posting is an opinion regarding these types of laws, not a factual statement => 'something that is clearly unconstitutional? '

Jerry Baumchen

Yes Jerry.

I wasn't being wholly serious.  That was what the little emoticon was for.

Its obvious to me that neither are any good.  If that is my opinion - then so be it.  Unless somehow it offends your sense of right and wrong if you agree with me.

[jclalor 12]

21 hours ago, airdvr said:

If you don't like out laws change them...oops.  Can't do it from Canada.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 5

Perhaps you can point out in the constitution where it says a sitting president cannot be indicted.

[JerryBaumchen 1,466]

1 hour ago, jclalor said:

Perhaps you can point out in the constitution where it says a sitting president cannot be indicted.

Hi jclalor,

That is another issue that, to the best of my knowledge, has never been adjudicated.

Jerry Baumchen

[kallend 2,147]

22 hours ago, airdvr said:

If you don't like out laws change them...oops.  Can't do it from Canada.

No Person except a natural born Citizen,. . . . . . . . .

Article II, Section 1(2)

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:

[kallend 2,147]

23 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Like forced birth laws?

Nowhere in the Constitution, as amended, does it mention rights belonging to the unborn.

In several places it refers to  "born" persons.

 

 

Article XIV (Amendment 14 - Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection)

1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

 

And then it goes on to specify the rights of sais citizens.

Logic suggests that if you are unborn you aren't a citizen and don't have those rights.

[airdvr 210]

32 minutes ago, kallend said:

Article II, Section 1(2)

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:

Not sure what point you're trying to make here.

[billvon 3,114]

4 hours ago, airdvr said:

Not sure what point you're trying to make here.

The Constitution sets how the president is elected - by electors.  The states choose how to choose the electors.  "A candidate has to be foreign born" - unconstitutional. "California electors must see a candidate's tax returns before they can choose that candidate" - not unconstitutional.

[kallend 2,147]

18 hours ago, airdvr said:

Not sure what point you're trying to make here.

Always amazing how many "native born" Americans don't seem to understand their own language and/or Constitution.

[Coreece 190]

19 hours ago, kallend said:

Article XIV (Amendment 14 - Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection)

1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

 

And then it goes on to specify the rights of sais citizens.

Logic suggests that if you are unborn you aren't a citizen and don't have those rights.

Logic does not suggest that a citizen = any person.

You're better off just sticking to the whole woman's body/jurisdiction thing, otherwise posts like this could come back to bite you in the ass.

Edited May 19, 2019 by Coreece

[kallend 2,147]

2 hours ago, Coreece said:

Logic does not suggest that a citizen = any person.

You're better off just sticking to the whole woman's body/jurisdiction thing, otherwise posts like this could come back to bite you in the ass.

Where did I suggest that it did?  READING is fundamental.

[Coreece 190]

2 hours ago, kallend said:

4 hours ago, Coreece said:

Logic does not suggest that a citizen = any person.

You're better off just sticking to the whole woman's body/jurisdiction thing, otherwise posts like this could come back to bite you in the ass.

Where did I suggest that it did?  READING is fundamental.

I'm  pointing out why your statement is only half right, or at best incomplete, both of which in most academic circles = fail.

[kallend 2,147]

10 hours ago, Coreece said:

I'm  pointing out why your statement is only half right, or at best incomplete, both of which in most academic circles = fail.

 

Lame backpedal, and apparently you know very little about academia.  You'd "fail" Einstein, Newton, Rutherford, Kelvin, Hawking, and a host of others.

 

[Coreece 190]

8 hours ago, kallend said:

19 hours ago, Coreece said:

I'm  pointing out why your statement is only half right, or at best incomplete, both of which in most academic circles = fail.

Lame backpedal

What's lame is your chronic inability to admit, or even recognize your fallacious logic.

You said that according to article 14 all persons born in the U.S are citizens, therefore the unborn aren't citizens and don't have the rights of "said citizens," but any lack of rights has nothing to do with a lack of citizenship.

By your logic, illegal immigrants at the border wouldn't have a right to due process.

The issue of rights has more to do with jurisdiction and personhood, not citizenship.