Latest Breaking News

LiberalFighter

(50,912 posts)

7. But the Constitutional requirement only applies to the general.

Reply to msongs (Reply #4)

Thu Sep 19, 2019, 05:24 PM

Sep 2019

Primaries are a different animal.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

41 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Federal judge blocks California law requiring Trump tax returns [View all] Judi Lynn Sep 2019 OP

The Pukes are all in lockstep thegoose Sep 2019 #1

Seriously... WTF!?! Surprised the judge wasn't appointed by that ass-clown!! InAbLuEsTaTe Sep 2019 #31

One of Dubya's toadies sandensea Sep 2019 #32

As they say, elections have consequences... we need to fight fire with fire. InAbLuEsTaTe Sep 2019 #34

I wish the good people in the intelligence agencies would see it that way. sandensea Sep 2019 #35

Good question!! InAbLuEsTaTe Sep 2019 #36

I thought state elections are state elections? bluestarone Sep 2019 #2

the office is federal not state nt msongs Sep 2019 #4

Right BUT States decide HOW to run their own elections. bluestarone Sep 2019 #6

Could a state declare that only voters over the age of 50 can vote in a primary? onenote Sep 2019 #14

SC said Feds can't interfer with gerrymandering bluestarone Sep 2019 #17

It is called the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution. former9thward Sep 2019 #25

This message was self-deleted by its author still_one Sep 2019 #20

But the Constitutional requirement only applies to the general. LiberalFighter Sep 2019 #7

Where does it say that in the Constitution? former9thward Sep 2019 #26

The primaries are not to elect someone to office dumbcat Sep 2019 #9

You can't get to the general without the primaries. former9thward Sep 2019 #27

Yes you can. How do third party candidates get there? lostnfound Sep 2019 #37

This law was aimed at the major parties not independents. former9thward Sep 2019 #39

Inaccurate ProfessorGAC Sep 2019 #38

Has CA changed it law about primaries? former9thward Sep 2019 #40

GAWD DAMN IT........ a kennedy Sep 2019 #3

Either way they rule on this will not be controversial Tiggeroshii Sep 2019 #5

Yep! No different than requirement with petition signatures to get on ballot in primaries. LiberalFighter Sep 2019 #8

what would be the argument against a rule that limited ballot access to billionaires? onenote Sep 2019 #15

My guess is they will try toavoid that approach altogether Tiggeroshii Sep 2019 #19

What about a law that says that the state electors for the cstanleytech Sep 2019 #10

That would be unconstitutional. onenote Sep 2019 #11

Why isn't it unconstitutional for other states to mandate who the electors can vote for? cstanleytech Sep 2019 #16

In your example, the state would be imposing a qualification for holding federal office. onenote Sep 2019 #18

But isnt that what some of the states are doing already by enacting requirements on who the cstanleytech Sep 2019 #22

no. onenote Sep 2019 #23

Problably yes, which is why laws concerning "faithless electors" are most likely unconstitutional. PoliticAverse Sep 2019 #28

It is Polybius Sep 2019 #29

California Olafjoy Sep 2019 #12

Please tell me Democrats have better lawyers BlueIdaho Sep 2019 #13

I don't think Lawyers are the problem bluestarone Sep 2019 #21

Trumps smug ugly face makes me sick.................. riversedge Sep 2019 #24

"The decision will likely be appealed by state officials." sakabatou Sep 2019 #30

U.S. Term_Limits Inc. v. Thornton suggests the law will not be upheld... PoliticAverse Sep 2019 #33

You can't argue "irreputable harm" ScratchCat Sep 2019 #41