Which the DOJ says that a sitting President is immune to.Regardless they have Laws that determine accountability.
You mean all the long-standing protocols that Trump has completely ignored?Long-standing protocol dictates
You mean like the head of the FBI that Trump dismissed just 3 years into his term as director of the FBI because he was investigating Trump? Are you still even arguing that the IRS could effectively handle this?That’s one reason that the FBI director serves a 10-year term and does not turn over the reins as presidential administrations come and go.
Regardless they have Laws that determine accountability.
Long-standing protocol dictates that the FBI and Justice Department operate free of political influence or meddling from the White House. That’s one reason that the FBI director serves a 10-year term and does not turn over the reins as presidential administrations come and go. It also means that presidents are not supposed to supervise, initiate or stop law enforcement investigations.
sorry but I thought this was old news.I'm shocked, shocked I tell you that this is what the situation has come to:
https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/donald-trump-i-will-release-tax-returns-607836227723
Republicans: crooked Hilary's tax returns are out there since 1977, when's #TraitorousTrump gonna finally man up and release his?
sorry but I thought this was old news.
Regardless they have Laws that determine accountability.
Long-standing protocol dictates that the FBI and Justice Department operate free of political influence or meddling from the White House. That’s one reason that the FBI director serves a 10-year term and does not turn over the reins as presidential administrations come and go. It also means that presidents are not supposed to supervise, initiate or stop law enforcement investigations.
Yet the president fired the head of the FBI for investigating him.
Looks like this one is stalled for now. I didn't think it would hold up.
Federal judge blocks California law requiring Trump tax returns
A federal judge issued a temporary injunction against a California state law that requires presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns to appear on the primary ballot.President Trump̵…thehill.com
Stalled, not stopped.
It's only a temporary order, just a bump in the road. The fact that it's all inclusive, will help it win the day.
That seems to be the heart of the issue. The constitution enumerates the requirements one needs to be president. CA is proceeding on the assumption that changing the requirements to get on the ballot doesn't infringe on that. It seems to me that we could end up with fifty different sets of requirements, it also seems to step on a person's right to privacy. I don't know anywhere near enough law to have a decisive opinion. My hunch is it end up in front of the supremes and die there.So...could California simply refuse to put his name on the ballots...and refuse to count any write-ins?
That seems to be the heart of the issue. The constitution enumerates the requirements one needs to be president. CA is proceeding on the assumption that changing the requirements to get on the ballot doesn't infringe on that. It seems to me that we could end up with fifty different sets of requirements, it also seems to step on a person's right to privacy. I don't know anywhere near enough law to have a decisive opinion. My hunch is it end up in front of the supremes and die there.
I can't even begin to guess if they could simply not put him on the ballot, it seems like that would be frowned on.
Could all be correct, I sure as hell don't know. My hunch is it won't stand, but I've been wrong before.How is requiring sufficient financial disclosure to ensure that the President is not in violation of Emoluments Clause changing the Constitution? While at the same time, States have absolute Constitutional power to determine their own requirements for President, and to control their own elections. Fifty different sets of requirements is exactly what the Framers of the Constitution, as this is a fundamental aspect of States Rights. Meanwhile, public officials have no rights to financial privacy for as long as they choose to remain public officials. This is a crucial check on corruption. This isn't going to the Supremes.
Your post is not only not based on the Constitution, it's one of the most un-republican ideas I've ever seen. States unable to control their own elections, public officials insulated from public scrutiny.. wtf?
You might want to recheck your sources on Comey.Yet the president fired the head of the FBI for investigating him.
I doubt it. Judges almost always end up ruling consistently with their decision on the temporary/preliminary injunction. One of the factors for imposing this kind of temporary injunction is "probability of success on the merits" so when he imposes the injunction he is saying it's unlikely CA will win in the end.
What I'd like to know is the rationale for this. AFAIK the Constitution permits the states to adopt their own rules for candidate qualification.
Except that wasn't the reasoning of the court. The ruling was made to prevent ""irreparable harm without temporary relief". The merits have yet to be argued.
You were completely wrong in the case of CA. I was wrong in that id died at the state level, not the fed.How is requiring sufficient financial disclosure to ensure that the President is not in violation of Emoluments Clause changing the Constitution? While at the same time, States have absolute Constitutional power to determine their own requirements for President, and to control their own elections. Fifty different sets of requirements is exactly what the Framers of the Constitution, as this is a fundamental aspect of States Rights. Meanwhile, public officials have no rights to financial privacy for as long as they choose to remain public officials. This is a crucial check on corruption. This isn't going to the Supremes.
Your post is not only not based on the Constitution, it's one of the most un-republican ideas I've ever seen. States unable to control their own elections, public officials insulated from public scrutiny.. wtf?
Law was struck down today by the California Supreme Court.
California Supreme Court strikes down law seeking release of Trump's tax returns
California Supreme Court: Law conflicts with the state's constitution guaranteeing voters can choose freely from nationally recognized candidates.www.usatoday.com
I have no doubt you have no idea of the irony in your statement.This is what happens when people legislate on "feels". California politicians are a special kind of stupid.
You were completely wrong in the case of CA. I was wrong in that id died at the state level, not the fed.