Kucinich off Texas Ballot

Discussion in '2007 Archive' started by carpro, Jan 4, 2008.

  1. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,896
    Likes Received:
    294
    http://www.kxan.com/Global/story.asp?S=7571182

    Kucinich Files Lawsuit With U.S. District Court

    Updated: Jan 3, 2008 04:49 PM CST
    Kucinich Files Lawsuit Against U.S. District Court


    Thursday, Democratic presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich found out he's off the Texas ballot. That's because the Texas Democratic Party said his application was "defective."

    There was a hearing in federal court about this controversy around 11 a.m. Thursday.

    On the application, candidates must sign an oath that requires them to support the Democratic nominee, whoever that shall be.
    Kucinich crossed out that section.
     
  2. MrJim

    MrJim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2007
    Messages:
    354
    Likes Received:
    0
    Kucinich who?[​IMG]
     
  3. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    72
    I think Kucinich is right on this issue, even if I disagree with him on 98% of the others!
     
  4. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,896
    Likes Received:
    294
    At first blush, I would agree with you . But after I thought about it , I realized that the democrat primary in Texas is not a "Texas" election.

    It's also not a federal election.

    It's a democrat party election. They make the rules. No one should run in their election without being loyal to the party.

    The pity is that a loyalty statement has to be required to make sure their own party members support their party. Democrats are so dishonest, they don't even trust each other.
     
  5. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    72
    BUT...and it's a big BUT...the loyalty oath infringes on one's constitutional right to vote as one pleases.

    In Arkansas (my home state), the strict control over the party primaries was used for years to prevent African-Americans from gaining any political power. The Democratic primaries were allowed to disenfranchise voters because it was not an "election." However, given the Democratic dominance in Arkansas politics, the African-American citizens, though possibly able to vote in the general election, could not really influence the process because the Democrat had already been chosen. The Republicans pretty much did not have a shot in the dark for over a century.
     
  6. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,896
    Likes Received:
    294
    No it doesn't. They are free to vote any way they please in the privacy of the voting booth.

    The loyalty oath for the candidates is to assure that they publicly support the party candidate and not show themselves to be a disgruntled loser by working against their party candidate.
     
  7. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    72
    It still infringes on their constitutional voting rights, IMO. One should have the ability publicly and privately to support any candidate of one's choosing.

    One should also have the ability to leave the party if one feels that the nominated candidate is sub-par. The loyalty oath does not allow for this. Of course, there is nothing stopping a candidate from simply lying on the form, but it's pointless to create this situation.
     
  8. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,293
    Likes Received:
    783
    Kucinich is not being honest in his motives for his lawsuit. While he claims that he has a problem with a blind loyalty oath that he sees is unconstitutional, he had no problem signing such an oath in 2003.

    Further he reveals his true motives when he said:

    The policy of war and blind loyalty oaths are two separate issues. But of course he does not have a constitutional legal argument with regards to the use of war so he trumps up anything unrelated to effect his cause. It is apparent that he does not see the loyalty oath as unconstitutional since he signed it in 03 and will sign it again if the DNC will promise to avoid war at all costs.

    Courts in America have ruled that under the same amendments he uses to prop up his disengenuine claim of loyalty oaths as unconstitutional, the right to freely associate is absolutely constitutional. He certainly doesn't have any problem with their money.
     

Share This Page

Loading...