California introduces bill forcing presidential candidates to release taxes

a reply to: MotherMayEye
Really? You think that a bureaucracy the size of the SSA is just going to fix itself?

Maybe that would be a better place to start, rather than saying "It can only be because of rampant voter fraud!"

Not later than 18 months after the date on which section 303(a)(5) takes effect, the Commission, in consultation with the Commissioner of Social Security, shall study and report to Congress on the feasibility and advisability of using Social Security identification numbers or other information compiled by the Social Security Administration to establish voter registration or other election law eligibility or identification requirements, including the matching of relevant information specific to an individual voter, the impact of such use on national security issues, and whether adequate safeguards or waiver procedures exist to protect the privacy of an individual voter.

That 18 months was a while back. Can't seem to find that report.



Do you think the California senate will pass the bill? Do you think it will stand up in court?

a reply to: Phage

Yeah, like 14 years ago, give or take.

Sorry, Phage. It's BS.

If a website can match my username and password to my account, then the SSA can match my name, DOB, and last 4 digits of my SS# to my voter registration application. The IRS can sure the heII find me and they have to read all NINE handwritten numbers on my returns. My husband and children's, too.

Matching SS# digits to names is what the SSA does.

I don't buy this crap.

But thank you for saying you buy it, even though I know you probably don't and just don't care. Because it does truly remind me that I am not wrong in feeling disenfranchised.

a reply to: Phage

There is no such thing as an undocumented citizen.

Oh, you are reaching!

She made an, in my opinion, clever statement by making up an apparent oxymoron, pointing out the ridiculousness of the 'undocumented immigrant' v.'citizen' dichotomy, implicitly saying that the connotations of the two is only in opposition by discourse ('illegals are are burden, illegals are bad - real Americans are great'), and explicitly saying that the' contribute to the country too. So they might be undocumented but for all intents and purposes that are citizens.

But you are right. There is no such thing as an undocumented citizen.
So let's just dismiss her entire point.

originally posted by: Phage
Do you think the California senate will pass the bill? Do you think it will stand up in court?

I don't know and that is the question in my mind. It could stand because it is a voluntary request. If you want to appear on their ballot this is the rule they have (if it passes).

I noticed this part was stricken from the original proposed legislation:

6881.The Legislature finds and declares that a presidential candidate’s income tax returns provide voters with essential information regarding the candidate’s potential conflicts of interest, business dealings, financial status, and charitable donations. Donald Trump’s refusal to release his income tax returns departed from decades of established political tradition, denying voters the opportunity to fully evaluate his fitness for the office of President of the United States.

That could come up in a legal challenge as it indicates the legislation was intended to target a specific person. There have been many historical legislative discussions on misuse of tax records to target political enemies.

Regardless, the legislation is so open that, like I mentioned earlier in the thread, a candidate could provide bogus tax returns and there is nothing in the proposed law to authenticate them.

I kind of think it's a non-issue.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

If you want to appear on their ballot this is the rule they have (if it passes).

Heh. That's really a good point.
Trump: I don't want to show them my tax returns.
Advisor: Ok, just don't run in California.

Regardless, the legislation is so open that, like I mentioned earlier in the thread, a candidate could provide bogus tax returns and there is nothing in the proposed law to authenticate them.

Maybe the Senate will see your post.

SCOTUS can overturn any state law. Trump has 5 to 4 advantage in SCOTUS. Let's see who has the last laugh.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Nope, they drove the middle class out and pumped it full of illegal immigrants who they let vote.

Sorry, but I live here. Lot's of middle class people still here right along with poor people and some rich folks as well.

According to the law Illegals can't vote either which means nobody is officially letting illegals vote here either.

If anything is being pumped it's you pumping false information out on ATS because that's what you believe.

a reply to: PlasticWizard

My point being that even though California has a reputation of being a liberal state, one that I will not disagree with, the extent to which so many people label the whole state as liberal is totally incorrect. And in the last 75 years, barring one term for Grey Davis, the only other democrat governors have been eight years for Pat Brown, then later eight years for his son Jerry Brown (during the most liberal years) and now Jerry Brown again for another eight.
So the Browns account for 24 of the 28 years of democrat governors out of the last 75

a reply to: opecz

Trump has 5 to 4 advantage in SCOTUS.

So...you are saying that the Supreme Court Justices will take the side of the president? No matter what?

Seems you have the same delusions as Trump. (Though he may be evolving. A bit.)

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MotherMayEye

If you want to appear on their ballot this is the rule they have (if it passes).

Heh. That's really a good point.
Trump: I don't want to show them my tax returns.
Advisor: Ok, just don't run in California.

Regardless, the legislation is so open that, like I mentioned earlier in the thread, a candidate could provide bogus tax returns and there is nothing in the proposed law to authenticate them.

Maybe the Senate will see your post.

Well, there's that.

And there's also the fact that the proposed law doesn't apply to write in candidates. Californians can write in Trump's name if they want to vote for him and he doesn't want to show his tax returns. He's not going to win there, anyway, and he can still get votes without showing his tax returns (or bogus ones).

a reply to: MotherMayEye

He's not going to win there, anyway, and he can still get votes without showing his tax returns (or bogus ones).

It's for the primary. Not the general. So I'm not sure he can just toss it off lightly.

a reply to: mOjOm

Isn't everything to do with the CA voter registration process computerized?

How many (red) States can make that claim?

originally posted by: yuppa

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?

except when it violates the federal laws then state law is to yield to the federal.

Right, but then the Tenth Amendment wouldn't apply: Federal law can only govern Federal jurisdiction.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MotherMayEye

He's not going to win there, anyway, and he can still get votes without showing his tax returns (or bogus ones).

It's for the primary. Not the general. So I'm not sure he can just toss it off lightly.

I missed that it was for the primary, only.

Eh, they can still write him in. But, it would have more impact, for sure.

I didn't realize so many primary candidates disclosed their tax returns over the last few decades. But apparently, they do. It's not just the nominees.

originally posted by: opecz
SCOTUS can overturn any state law. Trump has 5 to 4 advantage in SCOTUS. Let's see who has the last laugh.

I see that checks-and-balances concept flew right over your head and out the window in civics class, huh?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: mOjOm

Isn't everything to do with the CA voter registration process computerized?

How many (red) States can make that claim?

Isn't everything computerized these days???

I mean do they even make pencils anymore???
and Paper, what's that, the stuff you wipe your butt with???

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 ?

a reply to: mOjOm

Computerized or not, if there's no information provided to verify a voter's eligibility, then they can't be verified.

a reply to: Gothmog

Not according to whom the reply was directed.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: MotherMayEye
And, in which case, they are just granted voting rights?