Warning Sounds As California Attempts To Keep Trump Off 2020 Ballot

As usual, when it comes to government nuttiness, the state legislature in California is considering extra-constitutional requirements for a presidential candidate to get his or her name on the state primary ballot.

Peggy Grande has an opinion article at Fox News regarding those made up demands, and the danger state-imposed law has when the presidency is at stake.

The California state Senate approved a bill earlier this month to require candidates appearing on the 2020 presidential primary ballot — including President Trump — to release five years’ worth of income tax returns.

A timely and conveniently biased bill, which if it becomes law, means that Trump’s name may not appear on the California primary ballot during the upcoming presidential election cycle. And an especially egregious bill since the United States Constitution clearly states that there are only three requirements for holding the presidency.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution says to serve as president, one must:

be a natural-born U.S. citizen of the United States;

be at least thirty-five years old;

be a resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.

As Ms. Grande points out, these requirements have been in place since the current Constitution was adopted. Any additional nicities, such as released tax returns, physical examination information, travel records, etc., are nice, but not necessary.

The reality, though, is that the Democrats as a group are doing everything in their power to sidestep the Electoral College for 2020 and the future. This bill in California is part of a larger effort, but Ms. Grande points out its dangers.

And if California, or any other state, start to add non-Constitutional requirements for office holders, there’s no telling where that would end. Could they require a candidate to be of a certain gender, or race, sexual orientation, or even size or shape or set an arbitrary limit on a candidate’s age? Sounds discriminatory to me. Preposterous? Not exactly. In fact, the state’s legislature passed a similar bill in 2017, but then-Governor Jerry Brown, a Democrat, who did not release his own tax returns, vetoed the bill.

If this bill passes now, it sets an extremely dangerous precedent by which the rights of the voter are hijacked. In essence, the legislature could determine their preferred candidate and ensure that the selection criteria for inclusion on the ballot exclude everyone except that person.

Any challenge to a signed law of this magnitude would take years to make it through the court system, and that is where the matter would be settled if these requirements actually materialize.


1 Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.