Out of Control California

Let's be honest. California Governor Gavin Newsom never really cared much about the law. After all, when he was Mayor of San Francisco, he ordered the city to grant marriage licenses to gay couples, even though state law at the time declared marriage to be between a man and a woman. Newsom's disregard for the law ended when the state Supreme Court put an end to it. Therefore, I suppose we should not be surprised at Newsom's attempted end run around the US Constitution. Newsom signed into law a bill that prevented any presidential candidate from getting on the ballot in California's primary election (now in March, 2020) unless the candidate disclosed the last five years of their tax returns by November 26, 2019. Obviously, the super-majority Democrat legislature and Democrat Newsom were targeting President Trump, who has not released his tax returns.

The US Constitution sets out three requirements for eligibility to be president - a natural born citizen, 35 years of age and 14 years a resident in the United States. In vetoing similar legislation, prior Democrat Governor Jerry Brown opined that such a law may be unconstitutional. Then he added: "Second, it sets a 'slippery slope' precedent. Today we require tax returns, but what would be next? Five years of health records? A certified birth certificate? High school report cards? And will these requirements vary depending on which political party is in power?" To which I would add, the requirements would likely vary from state to state, with each state determining the requirements to be president. This law, intended to deny Trump access to California's delegates to the Republican Party convention, is clearly unconstitutional.

Yet, the dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, Erwin Chemerinsky, wrote an Op-Ed in the 8/1/19 LA Times explaining why he thought the law was Constitutional. First, he discusses why the voting public might be interested in a candidate's tax returns. No doubt many would. But, as Jerry Brown explained, there are many things the public might want to know about a presidential candidate. Then, Chemerinsky acknowledges that most cases dealing with the issue have addressed access to the ballot for state and local elections. He then asserts that the "constitutional principles are the same" for the office of President. That is a rather odd conclusion. Clearly, states can set forth their own requirements for eligibility for state and local offices, assuming they do not discriminate on the basis of wealth or political party affiliation. Judicial Watch and several individuals have already filed suit to block this law. I am confident that this law will be struck down by the Courts.

It is also generally not a good idea to so obviously target a specific individual - Trump. When Congress proposed the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution limiting a President to two terms after FDR's election four times, they put a provision in the Amendment specifically excluding the person holding the office of President when the Article was proposed. That person was Harry Truman. California could have made their law effective after the 2020 election. But, as they were targeting Trump, that would not do. Whether or not Newsom seriously expects the law to survive a court challenge, it is clear that this is his announcement that he will be running for president in 2024.

California also has a bill proposing that a class in "ethnic studies" be required for high school graduation. The devil, as they say, is in the details; and in this case the details are made up of a bunch of left-wing propaganda. In their 8/4/19 editorial, even the LA Times recognized that the current draft proposal "is an impenetrable melange of academic jargon and politically correct pronouncements. It's hard to wade through all the references to hxrstory and womxn and misogynoir and cisheteropatriarchy." Whew! The Wall Street Journal had a 7/30/19 Op-Ed telling us that the course defines itself as "the interdisciplinary study of race, ethnicity, and indigeneity with an emphasis on experiences of people of color in the United States."

Most Jewish groups opposed the model curriculum as being anti-Jewish. After all, the course would include discussions of "Islamophobia, homophobia, xenophobia, dehumanization, microaggression and the anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement..." (As noted in the Jewish Journal of LA.) Curiously, there is no mention of anti-Semitism, nor, apparently of Judaism. One might think this odd as anti-Semitism is growing, and we are not terribly far removed from the shooting at the synagogue in Poway, California.

Capitalism is not looked on too fondly. Rather, capitalism fares no better than racism, white supremacy, patriarchy and ableism - all of which are described as a "form of power and oppression." Students would then be encouraged to be "agents of change, social justice organizers and advocates." So, first brainwash the students with leftist ideology, and then send them out into the world to become agents of "change."

After much protest by Jewish groups and others, the state Board of Education announced that they would "substantially redesign" the course program. But so what? I already know enough that I would never send my kids to public school today if they were young. After all, how does such a curriculum even get proposed? Instead of "Ethnic Studies," the redesigned class should be called "We Will teach You to Hate America, Hate Capitalism, Hate Jews and Israel, and Of Course, Hate White People."