California Governor Gavin Newsom’s web page makes it easy for anyone to comment on SB 27, the bill to keep presidential candidates off a presidential primary ballot if they don’t release income tax returns. The web page has a place for comments, and one can choose a list of 27 particular State Senate bills, of which SB 27 is one.
See here. Then in the “Please choose your subject” box, scroll down below the list of generic topics, and find the numerical list of Assembly bills, and then Senate bills. Choose SB 27. I have just sent a comment that California Constitution, Article II, sec. 5(e), tells the Secretary of State to put all “recognized” presidential candidates on the presidential primary ballots. None of the analyses of SB 27 in any legislative committee even mentioned this part of the California Constitution, and newspaper editorials and stories likewise almost never mention it.
Governor Newsom must act by July 30. On July 24, while visiting Sanger in Fresno County to sign a bill for a fund to help communities fund improved water quality, he was asked about SB 27. He said he is still consulting legal experts. Thanks to Politico for that news.
ABOLISH Guv vetoes – a vestige of the 1066 Brit DARK AGE of killer monarchs and oligarchs.
TOTAL separation of powers
PR and AppV
Do ANY of the RED communist officers in CA pay ANY attention whatever to the CA Const ???
— esp. Guv, SOS, Att Gen.
Were Ross Perot and John Anderson generally recognized presidential candidates?
Since the California Constitution requires that all recognized candidates be placed on the presidential primary ballot, can California require affiliation as a condition of being recognized as a candidate. Isn’t that equivalent to excluding independent candidacies?
Rocky de la Fuente should intervene in the IVN lawsuit.
SB 27 is an attempt to DEPRIVE California CITIZENS of the opportunity to vote for A DULY qualified Presidential candidate, absent a new eligibility QUALIFICATION… beyond that which is prescribed by the Founding Fathers in our U.S. Constitution.
Deprivation of rights under color-of-law”, under 18 U.S.C. § 242… makes it a crime …to willfully deprive a person of a right OR privilege protected by the Constitution or U.S. laws …AND includes acts done by STATE officials the crime of which includes FINES or IMPRISONMENT… or BOTH.
THEN there’s Article I of the U.S. Constitution which SPECIFICALLY prohibits THE passing of ANY FORM OF “bills of attainder” by BOTH the federal govt. and the States… because they nullify THE TARGETED PERSON’S civil rights.
In U.S v. Lovett, SCOTUS opined that Congress had exceeded its power when it enacted legislation that disqualified people from positions (of employment)… i.e.: created a “bill of attainder”… In 1965, the US Supreme Court AGAIN addressed the BILL OF ATTAINDER Clause in U.S. v. Brown… DEVISED a three-part TEST, …specifically rejected a “narrow historical approach” …and OPINED to prohibit (quote) “legislative punishment, of any form or severity…” (end quote)
As specified in U.S. v. Brown …and IN OPPOSITION TO the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals POSITION, SCOTUS “held” that EXCLUSION FROM EMPLOYMENT is a form of punishment…and SB 27 will CERTAINLY deprive ANY Presidential candidate from “the opportunity of employment”… IF THEY DON’T SUBMIT TO THE “NEW TAX-RETURN QUALIFIER”… thus, SB 27 violates “civil rights & other laws” as well as numerous “PROTECTIONS” defined within the US Constitution!
By APPROVING SB 27… Sacramento legislators AND Gov. Newsom will PERSONALLY be VIOLATING 18 U.S.C. § 242 & WOULD BE subject to fines and/or imprisonment for APPROVING SB 27… under “color of law & authority”.
WHERE CAN I GET COPIES OF GOVERNOR NEWSOM’S TAX RETURNS FOR ANY OR ALL YEARS?
fuck you newsome your wife says you beat her and you like little boys you faggot hope you die soon piece of shit!