›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Bob Barr may be crazy, but I almost hope this happens

RymRym
edited September 2008 in Politics
"Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party's nominee for president, has filed a lawsuit in Texas demanding Senators John McCain and Barack Obama be removed from the ballot after they missed the official filing deadline."

This would devastate the Republicans, and in this case I'm feeling somewhat that it's justified. Even better: Obama may well have filed correctly, but McCain clearly did not.
«1

Comments

  • CremlianCremlian
    "Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party's nominee for president, hasfiled a lawsuitin Texas demanding Senators John McCain and Barack Obama be removed from the ballot after they missed the official filing deadline."

    This would devastate the Republicans, and in this case I'm feeling somewhat that it's justified. Even better: Obama may well have filed correctly, but McCain clearly did not.

    That will happen when pigs fly....
  • RymRym
    That will happen when pigs fly....
    Still, it should happen. Why do we even have all of these laws concerning the electoral process if "important" parties can just ignore them? You can bet that if the Libertarians or the Green had missed this deadline, they would have been screwed.

    Rym.politics.jadedness++ Help me Barack Obama: you're my only hope.
  • Luke BurrageLuke Burrage
    An unrelated question... how come you linked to a link of the story instead of linking directly to the press release? I've noticed this many time on blogs too. They say "Here is something good!" and link to the Boing Boing post about it that then links to another blogs and then that links to the actual thing they are talking about. Just link right there, I don't want to track how things spread across the internets.

    Still, I can't see this lawsuit going anywhere. As far as I can tell, as an outside observer, both the major parties are above the law. So are most things with political power or money. Or both.
  • RymRym
    how come you linked to a link of the story instead of linking directly to the press release?
    The press release is far more likely to not be on the other end of that link in the future than the Slashdot story is.

    Linking to a large aggregator, like Slashdot or Fark, is preferable to linking directly to an article. Linking to a small aggregator or blog, however, reeks of ad-spam, as there is no benefit over just linking directly.
  • misakyramisakyra
    If this were to happen, I would have to assume that the world had somehow slipped into a parallel universe while we weren't paying attention, because the day Texas kicks a republican candidate off the ballot is never going to arrive. There's an infinitesimal chance that you might be able to get a democrat kicked out, but then I (along with most of my friends) would have to move. And that would suck.

    But this does prove an interesting point about how both major parties seem to think that their position on the ballot is automatically guaranteed. (which it shouldn't be).
  • KilarneyKilarney
    This is all meaningless. There would be sufficient write-ins for McCain to win Texas.
  • RymRym
    There would be sufficient write-ins for McCain to win Texas.
    Actually, Texas has very strict write-in laws. It appears that he would be ineligible even for that, as he did not register as a write-in candidate.
  • CremlianCremlian
    edited September 2008
    This is all meaningless. There would be sufficient write-ins for McCain to win Texas.
    Never underestimate how lazy the american people are...

    I mean the republicans were lazy enough not to even register in Texas..
    Post edited by Cremlian on
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    There would be sufficient write-ins for McCain to win Texas.
    Actually, Texas has very strict write-in laws. It appears that he would be ineligible even for that, as he did not register as a write-in candidate.
    Check the big brain on Rym!
  • jccjcc
    So why is Bob Barr crazy? I doubt he'll win, but he's a fascinating candidate. For one, he's so square that he seems to have looped back around into some sort of hipness. Secondly, he's an ex-Republican of the sort that one never expects to become an ex-Republican. I'd be very keen on discovering what sort of major epiphany could have compelled him to change parties...
  • StarfoxStarfox
    Seriously? Fair tax. 'Nuff said.
  • KilarneyKilarney
    edited September 2008
    Texas has very strict write-in laws.
    There is NO way these would stand up in court.

    I can understand government having rules for who gets to appear on the ballot, but there is no way they can tell me who I can or can't vote for.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited September 2008
    Texas has very strict write-in laws.
    I just checked them out. There is NO way these would stand up in court.
    Do you have any support for that or is it merely your opinion?
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • KilarneyKilarney
    edited September 2008
    Do you have any support for that or is it merely your opinion?
    I have better things to do than research this right now. It is my opinion that the government can not deny me the right to vote for the candidate of my choice. Please tell me Joe, that you support this notion. If not, I have an address is North Korea for you.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited September 2008
    The section of the Texas Code concerning write-in candidates doesn't appear to have been challenged since it was enacted in 1986. It doesn't allow a person to write in any name at all. The voter can only choose from a list of possible write-ins if he wants his write-in vote to count.

    I don't think we're talking North Korea here, and for someone with better things to do, you sure are posting a lot today. Just admit that Rym pwned you and move on.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • Luke BurrageLuke Burrage
    how come you linked to a link of the story instead of linking directly to the press release?
    The press release is far more likely to not be on the other end of that link in the future than the Slashdot story is.

    Linking to a large aggregator, like Slashdot or Fark, is preferable to linking directly to an article. Linking to a small aggregator or blog, however, reeks of ad-spam, as there is no benefit over just linking directly.
    I'd agree with this if the site you linked to had the full text of the press release, or even a good summary. But you linked to a page with exactly the same information you gave when you linked to it.

    Sorry for moaning, this is just a common annoyance for me, and your example was the clearest case I've come across recently.
  • KilarneyKilarney
    edited September 2008
    Joe,

    The law states at the beginning:
    "Except as otherwise provided by law, if the name of the person for whom a voter desires to vote does not appear on the ballot, the voter may write in the name of that person."

    Please show me where the law says that you can not write in the candidate of your choice for a federal election. I see restrictions for candidates for state and county office, but nothing for federal elections.

    Secondly, let me ask you a very simple question. Do you support the right of government to limit who you may vote for in an election? This assumes that the candidate is otherwise qualified (residency, non-felon, etc.)
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited September 2008
    The law states at the beginning:
    "Except as otherwise provided by law, if the name of the person for whom a voter desires to vote does not appear on the ballot, the voter may write in the name of that person."
    . . . and then the statute provides limitations. Didn't you take a course in reading legislation? That phrase means, "a voter can vote by write in, subject to limitations . . ."

    My opinion regarding whether the limitation is just is not important. I didn't make any sort of statement that begs proof. You were the one who said "There is NO way these would stand up in court." Apparently they have stood for some twenty-odd years.

    Didn't you have better things to do?
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • KilarneyKilarney
    edited September 2008
    . . . and then the statute provides limitations. Didn't you take a course in reading legislation? That phrase means, "a voter can vote by write in, subject to limitations . . ."
    Jesus Christ, Joe. The statute says that you can write in whomever you want - unless there are limitations.

    SHOW ME IN THE STATUTE WHERE THERE ARE ANY LIMITATIONS ON WRITING IN A CANDIDATE FOR A FEDERAL ELECTION.

    Here is a hint: They don't exist!

    If you're going to get on your high horse and cite a statute - take the time to read the freakin thing!

    Rym gets a little "pwnd."

    As a lawyer, you get a huge PWND
    image

    And would you stop dodging my question - Do you support the right of government to limit who you can vote for in an election, assuming the candidate you wish to vote for is qualified?
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited September 2008
    I think I'm just going to stand by my earlier observation that, for someone who was saying that he had better things to do, you sure are putting a lot of time into this.

    Don't be embarrassed. Rym is a very smart guy and he showed that you didn't really know what you were talking about. It happens. Maybe you should just let it go before you have a heart attack or something.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • KilarneyKilarney
    edited September 2008
    I think I'm just going to stand by my earlier observation that, for someone who was saying that he had better things to do, you sure are putting a lot of time into this. Don't be embarrassed. Rym is a very smart guy.
    Joe, you were pwnd huge. It was worth having to stay late at work to engage in this distraction.

    In all seriousness, this is why I'm asking you to stop antagonizing me. For an otherwise intelligent guy, you waste so much of the forum's time when you seek to bicker with me.

    And for the third time, will you answer my question? Do you support the right of government to limit who you can vote for in an election, assuming the candidate you wish to vote for is qualified?
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • KilarneyKilarney
    edited September 2008
    Don't be embarrassed. Rym is a very smart guy and he showed that you didn't really know what you were talking about. It happens. Maybe you should just let it go before you have a heart attack or something.
    Uhh... Joe... did you read the statute? It says that you MAY write in any name you choose for a national election.

    Hello? Earth to Joe!

    Only you would let your personal animosity get the better of you to the extent that you would produce a law proving I was right - and then attempt to claim that you won the debate. I guess this is what you get from a person whose most important factor in voting is whether or not the person hunts from a helicopter.

    Rym read the comments to the article. He took some bad advice.
    You produced a law. The law supported my position that McCain could be written in - and you still claimed I was wrong about that. In any event, thanks for doing my research.
    But yeah, I guess Rym is smarter.

    Give it a rest, Joe. I've been asking you for weeks.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited September 2008
    Texas Write-In Deadline for President Passes
    Texas has an August 26 deadline for declared write-ins to file to have their write-ins counted. Presidential candidates meeting the deadline are: Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, Brian Moore, Alan Keyes, Jonathan Allen, and Thaddeus Hill.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • KilarneyKilarney
    edited September 2008
    Yup. And you cited a statue in support of your argument that proved me right. There may be another statute out there, but the fact that you would cite an entirely incorrect statute says more about you than me.

    You can't un-pwn that gaffe.

    By the way, did a third grader design the webpage you just cited?
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited September 2008
    Texas Secretary of State - Running for President in Texas
    Write-in Candidates
    Write-in candidates file a declaration of write-in candidacy with the Secretary of State. The declaration may not be filed earlier than July 27, 2008, or later than 5:00 p.m. of August 26, 2008. The declaration must also be accompanied with information about the vice-presidential running mate and the names and addresses of the presidential electors. Written-signed statements of each individual’s consent to be a vice-presidential candidate or elector must accompany the application. Texas has 34 presidential electors. Forms may be obtained from the Secretary of State’s office.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • CremlianCremlian
    Rym didn't get Pwned, he only wished it was possible for McCain not to be on the texas ballet because they didn't play by the rules...
  • KilarneyKilarney
    Joe. I understand that the Secretary of State expects you to file as a write-in. I can Google to.

    Nonetheless, you incorrectly cited a law that supported my position.

    That's the pwnage.

    Like I said... there may be a law out there that says you are right. I'd just suggest that you cite the correct law, and not one that supports my position.
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited September 2008
    § 192.036. WRITE-IN CANDIDATE. (a) With respect to a
    write-in candidacy for the office of president of the United
    States, this section supersedes Subchapter B, Chapter 146, to the
    extent of any conflict.
    (b) A declaration of write-in candidacy for president must
    satisfy the requirements prescribed by Section 192.032(b) for an
    independent presidential candidate's application for a place on the
    ballot, except that a petition is not required.
    (c) The certification for placement on the list of write-in
    candidates must include the names of both the presidential
    candidate and the vice-presidential candidate.
    Texas Code

    kilarney, the statute didn't support your position. It said that a person may write in a vote, but only with limitations. That's the general statute, k., you should know that's the starting place. You should also know that when a statute says that there are restrictions to be stated later, that there are restrictions that will be stated later. There are restrictions on write-in presidential candidates in Texas.

    Rym showed he knows more about Texas election law than you do. What still hasn't been shown, is why you think that "There is NO way this will stand up in court."

    It's also funny how you said you read the statute before you came yo your conclusion that it "wouldn't stand up in court", and then seemed so confused about it.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • KilarneyKilarney
    Whew. That must have taken a lot of Googling!

    I don't have time to read it now - but I'll check it out later.

    I've never claimed to know Texas law.
    I do, however, always cite the correct law when making an argument. That's something you learn the first day of law school.
    So you can say whatever you want, Joe - but I'll take my incorrect belief any day over your tremendous gaffe.

    I suppose if you want to keep harping on the fact that I should be an expert in Texas law, you can... I personally am proud that I'm not.

    So yes... I was wrong about the law. (Assuming the one you FINALLY cited backs up your position.) Unlike you, I have no problem admitting when I'm incorrect.

    Rym's pwn-age is removed.

    Yours stays in a huge way.

    As for whether or not this would pass a constitutional challenge, you yourself have admitted that there has been no decision from a court. So for now, we are just left with our opinions. You know mine.

    Oh... and for the fourth time... would you please stop dodging my question?
    Do you support the right of government to prohibit you from voting for a candidate of your choice assuming the candidate is otherwise qualified?
  • KilarneyKilarney
    You should also know that when a statute says that there are restrictions to be stated later, that there are restrictions that will be stated later.
    Yes. And I know that you put forth an argument without any proof whatsoever - and actually proof (by omissions in what you cited) that I was right.

    Pwn-age remains.

    I still maintain that there is NO way this would stand up in court if challenged. I'm entitled to my opinion - and since no court has ruled on the issue, anything we say is speculation.
    And for the record... I don't claim for a second to have researched these matters. This is just my gut instinct. So if you can find a case from some obscure jurisdiction - then I'll gladly stand corrected. There is a difference between fact and opinion. I freely admit that my opinion is based on what little facts I know about election law.

    And for the fifth time, will you please stop dodging my question:
    Do you support the right of government to prohibit you from voting for a candidate of your choice assuming the candidate is otherwise qualified?
Sign In or Register to comment.