Kucinich off Texas Ballot

Kucinich who?

 

I think Kucinich is right on this issue, even if I disagree with him on 98% of the others!

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.