|
Welcome to Political Fever - The Political Debate Forums. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest with limited access. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. You can also take part in our Private Debates where you can test your skills against an opponent. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us. After you Register the advertisements will disappear on the site! |
|
||||||
| Election 2008 Discuss the upcoming election in 2008. |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
||||
|
Barr Gets Smacked Down
The Texas Supreme Court makes a decision about Obama and McCain's right to be on the ballot after missing the deadline. by RS Davis (Libertarian) Thursday, September 25, 2008 The Nolan Chart If you've been following The Freedom Files, you know that Bob Barr has sued Texas to get John McCain and Barack Obama taken off the ballot. You see, according to Texas election code, they needed to file by August 25th. McCain didn't certify until September 4th, Obama on August 28th, and yet they were still included on the ballot, in violation of election law. Well, the verdict is in, and the court has rejected Mr Barr's lawsuit. Now, I can't say that I am completely surprised - we all expected the monopoly parties to keep their elite status and flout election law without consequence. What I have been more interested to hear was what would be their reasoning for violating election law and allowing McCain and Obama to remain on the ballot. My money was on the court saying it was "in the interest of democracy," but the most common defense I've heard for the monopoly candidates late filing is that, in accordance with Chapter 181 of the election code, if a party's candidate recieves 5% of the vote in the previous election, they are automatically afforded a spot on the ballot in the next election. The only problem with that defense is that Chapter 181 doesn't apply to Democrats or Republicans because that chapter deals with political parties that nominate by convention, like the Libertarian Party. The Democrats and Republicans nominate by a primary process, which puts them under Chapter 172 of the election code, which has no loophole for five percenters. Parties falling under both chapters then move to chapter 192, which holds the requirement that they file at least 70 days before the general election. So if Michael Badnarik had recieved 5% of the vote last time around, Bob Barr would not have had to have certified by August 25th, but regardless of their numbers, both of the monopoly parties are bound by that legal deadline. But the court did not use that reasoning nor the "interest of democracy" reasoning. This is the entire summation of their decision: ![]() THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS Orders Pronounced September 23, 2008 MISCELLANEOUS THE FOLLOWING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS IS DENIED That's it. No explanation. Just denied. Now if that isn't Big Government Hubris, I don't know what is. They know that people are so fully inculcated into the "two party system," no one would even question the verdict. And those that did question it would find that no one else was listening. I believe they were right. ____________________________ Barr Finally Fights For Texas Barr Fights for Texas Bob Barr Wins Texas (And the Election Hasn’t Even Started!) ______________________ If you liked this article, please click the link and then click on the thumbs up at the top of the page. |
|
||||
|
I'm not surprised by this either. However, the Democrats and Republicans technically nominate at the convention. McCain and Obama were not actually nominated by their respective parties until a specific point during their respective conventions.
__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air. "Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder. "I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up." The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation. "Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves." |
|
||||
|
Quote:
The judges simply ignored the law and issued an order not based on law....but based on their desire to violate the law. Therefore, the justices to the supreme court are now criminals. Perhaps we can push to disbar them. Either way, the election has been stolen. Given the only name on the ballot (Barr) and the write-ins being the only LEGAL selection, Barr would have surely made the debates given voting history turnout. The election is now illigitimate.
__________________
The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish! - Frederick Bastiat |
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air. "Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder. "I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up." The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation. "Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves." |
|
||||
|
I don't think they can constitutionally. However, after the Bush fiasco, who knows?
__________________
The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish! - Frederick Bastiat |
|
||||
|
Why can't a state court's decision be appealed to the federal court?
__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air. "Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder. "I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up." The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation. "Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves." |
|
||||
|
UPDATE: Wow, this article has now been linked to by reason magazine! Not just a "we heard about this from," but as the actual source of the information. Totally. Stoked.
|
|
||||
|
It can.
__________________
___________________ ![]() A picture is worth a thousand words. Wish Barack H. Obama good luck on 1/20/2009 (202) 456-1414 Contact the White House Inauguration Day Events |
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
===Quote of the day===
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|