On September 13, Law Professor Erwin Chemerinsky filed this amicus brief in the California Supreme Court in Patterson v Padilla, the lawsuit over whether the California Constitution prohibits keeping candidates off the presidential primary ballot if they don’t reveal their tax returns.
The main thrust of the amicus is that the California legislature can do almost anything it wants when it writes election laws. The brief does not grapple with the meaning of the word “recognized”. The California Constitution says all “recognized” candidates will be put on a presidential primary ballot (if they are seeking the nomination of a political party that is ballot-qualified). Chemerinsky implies that the legislature has the power to define the word “recognized”.
The amicus repeats the misinformation that all presidential candidates since Nixon have revealed their tax returns, ignoring the point in yesterday’s De La Fuente brief in federal court that minor party presidential candidates have almost never done that.
Was David Boies implicated in the Theranos scandal, or was he just a well-paid guileless dupe?
Evidently it also needs to be repeated that the overriding responsibility of this Court is to the Constitution of the United States, no matter how late it may be that a violation of the Constitution is found to exist.
Chessman v. Teets, 354 U.S. 156, 165 (1957).
—-
What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. 277, 325 (1867); U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 778, 829 (1995).
A law must be tested by its operation and effect. Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 708-709 (1931); U.S. Term Limits, Inc., supra, 514 U.S., at 831.
—-
*RECOGNIZED* = VOID FOR VAGUENESS — 1 AMDT, DUE PROCESS
@DR,
It is unclear what point you are attempting to make.
Forced disclosure of income taxes for ballot access = BLATANTLY unconstitutional – indirect added on qualif for USA Prez candidates.
—
RECOGNIZED section of CA Const = BLATANTLY unconstitutional — no matter how many times used in the rotted past–
akin to END of race segregated skoools in 1954 Brown v Bd of Ed
— overruling junk from 1896-1954 – mere 58 years.
SCOTUS brain dead in ballot access cases since 1968 — mere 51 years.
Prof EC must be sent to the law skoool belfry for senile/MORON Profs.
The CA Legislature is a RED communist tyranny body due to the top 2 primary scheme and rigged gerrymander districts due to the RED communist controlled CA Gerrymander Commission —
the other rot follows – like the tax form disclosure machination for ballot access.
IE Now ALL new / amended laws in CA are RED communist laws.
Matter of mere time before ALL past laws are repealed or amended RED communist in CASSOR.
See olde East Europe regimes after Stalin takeovers in 1944-1948.
How soon before RED CASSOR regime builds a CASSOR Wall keeping slaves [esp tax slaves] from escaping ???
See olde Berlin Wall. Same for other RED communist States- MA, NY, etc.
Probable MAJOR RESISTANCE in many States – MI, IL, PA, VA, FL, TX, etc.
Thus the RED communist efforts to get TOTAL CONTROL in the USA gerrymander systems — USA Reps, Senate and EC — to CRUSH ALL Elephant regimes with USA FORCE — DISARM the civilian population, etc.
—
PR and AppV and TOTSOP
Article I, Section 4.
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.
“M]ay at any time” means the Congress, not any state, has plenary power to regulate elections consistent with other provisions of the Constitution.
DFR –
1-4 DOES N-O-T APPLY TO 12 AMDT PREZ ELECTOR MACHINATIONS
@DR,
Why do say it is blatantly unconstitutional? Surely the California Constitution can not violate itself.
It can’t be blatant if only you can see that is – and even you can not explain why.
JR – back to Con Law 000001 in any law skoooool.
—-
*RECOGNIZED* = *** BLATANTLY *** unconstitutional — VOID FOR VAGUENESS — 1 AMDT, DUE PROCESS —
regardless of all moron lawyers who love vague adjectives and adverbs — in constitutions and mere laws.
Students — do a google of *VOID FOR VAGUENESS*.
For mere starters —
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagueness_doctrine
See the right side of the page for American CON LAW stuff.
—
Too many absolutely useless lawyers and party HACK judges to count in all election law cases – esp since 1964-1968.
—
PR and AppV and TOTSOP
@DR,
Proposition 4 did not impose criminal penalties. It does not deprive anyone of personal right, particularly the right to vote.
The term “recognized” is well understood and has been applied for 11 presidential elections.
Evidently it also needs to be repeated that the overriding responsibility of this Court is to the Constitution of the United States, no matter how late it may be that a violation of the Constitution is found to exist.
Chessman v. Teets, 354 U.S. 156, 165 (1957).
—
Often takes the SCOTUS morons a long time to detect LONG time constitutional violations –
SEE ALL the SCOTUS ops over-ruled by later ops — in the Constitution Annotated Appx at end — esp election law ops.
extreme example – 1842 Federal common law fiction created –
1938 Erie RR op – 1842 fiction ruled UN-constitutional — after mere 96 years.
@DR,
Caryl Chessman was convicted of a capital crime in 1948. The long time that Justice Harlan refers to is the period between 1948 and an appeal made on the eve of his execution. After remand and subsequent litigation, Chessman was executed in 1960.
Who are you claiming is entitled to due process? Gavin Newsom because he was not aware of the provisions of the California Constitution that he has sworn to uphold? The California General Assembly because they seemingly were unaware of that provision, even though there was concurrently other legislation that specifically implemented that constitutional provision?
AS JR surely knows — SCOTUS uses general language for use in ALL sorts of OTHER cases —
aka SCOTUS maxims.
Vague — See Constitution Annotated.
IE — ARBITRARY [aka LAWLESS] power in SOS to *recognize* some party HACK to put the HACK’s name on the Prez primary ballots.
How much chaos if *recognized* was the ONLY standard for ballot access for ALL offices — by some state/local HACK officers ???
https://www.fec.gov/data/raising-bythenumbers/
Mere 885 Prez candidates at the moment
How many are magically *recognized* by the CA SOS HACK ???
Gee – I note that the national RED donkeys used even dubious polling data [full of liars] for getting a Donkey into 2020 Donkey Prez *debates* — NOT any *recognized* stuff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_debates_and_forums
@DR,
You’re ducking questions. Please concentrate.
Something can not be considered a blatant violation of the US Constitution if it is so subtle that only you are able to detect see it.
Who are you claiming is being denied due process by the California Constitutional provision providing that the SOS place recognized candidates on the ballot (see Article II.5(c)).
BLATANT USA Const 1 Amdt and 14-1 due process violations.
see those Constitution Annotated SCOTUS ops.
https://constitution.congress.gov/conan/browse/
1 Amdt vague, 14-1 DP cl
State Consts mean ZERO vs USA Const.
@DR,
I did not see any cases that were applicable. Be specific.
Are you agreeing with the Chemerinsky amicus brief?
What is your definition of blatant?
New stronger glasses for U ???
The C brief is one more blatant communist document.
—
adjective
brazenly obvious; flagrant: a blatant error in simple addition; a blatant lie.
offensively noisy or loud; clamorous: blatant radios.
tastelessly conspicuous: the blatant colors of the dress.
—
How many *good* trial lawyers use *blatant* every day, week, month ???
NO more Con Law spoon feeding in this list – cases will be delivered to appeals lawyers in 9 Cir and SCOTUS.
@DR,
We are making some progress. You effectively acknowledge that any unconstitutionality of the Califorrnia Constitution is so subtle that only you can detect it.
Since the SCOTUS is quite unlikely to make a sua sponte declaration, please describe a hypothetical plsintiff who make an argument that his first amendment rights or right to due process was violated by the “vagueness” of the California Constitution.
Don’t need any *hypothetical* plaintiff(s) –
the current crop of plaintiffs [and/or some added NON-***recognized*** FEC Prez candidates – see 885 above] will suffice —
— IF their lawyers have ANY brain cells about CA Const *recognized* being USA UNCON – 1 Amdt, 14-1 DP Cl – void for vagueness.
A very big IF — since New Age so-called lawyers seem to be getting more and more hair-splitting STUPID — playing more and more STUPID games with the the more and more vague adjectives and adverbs in SCOTUS more and more JUNK ops.
Circular toilet bowl stuff – down the drain.
Don’t need *blatant[ly]* – just [FACIALLY] UNCON.
@DR,
Only 91 report any contributions. We’ll pretend you are licensed to practice law, and one of the other 801 others has contacted you to represent them pro bono.
What relief will you be seeking for your putative client in your pretend lawsuit.