I believe they (the Republicans) did try to craft a rule to prevent unwelcome candidates in the future and sort of succeeded, even. Let's not blame the whole state, thanks.

But furthermore, why would we want the state to decide who can and cannot run for office based on (admittedly disgusting) political views?

that stated that 40% of Millennials were in favor of trashing the First Amendment to prevent offending minorities.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/

While I think we can all agree that hate speech is repugnant, it is chilling to me that one of our most basic rights is in danger.

It would not surprise me at all that some would want the government to hand select who can and cannot run for office. The trouble is, that kind of thing can turn around and bite you on the ass big time, when the shoe is on the other foot.

However, I don't take too much stock in that polling of millennials. I remember when I was in my 20's I was an idiot (not that that has changed much!).

I bet most of the folks who said they would change the 1st Amendment will change their own minds first.

I shudder when I think of how stupid I was when I was in my 20's!

I've always found it ironic that we are expected to make the most important decisions of our lives--education, career, marriages--when we are the dumbest we will ever be!!!

have not tried to restrict who can run for office. What they wanted to do was to have control over who could run ***as a Republican***. A sizable group of them felt Duke was making the party look bad. However they were unable to figure out a way to limit the use of the Republican label that enough party members would vote for such a rule.

People can label themselves with whatever political label they choose. The clown who founded the Westboro Baptist Church, for instance, calls himself a Dem. How can either party be exclusive enough to make sure their members adhere to their value.

You already see it on college campuses. A LOT of them. Ban someone you dont like.

are so ignorant about the Constitution. What are they being taught in college these days?

I'm pretty sure that it's unconstitutional to ban someone from running for office because he is a member of a hate group, and I think Congress would have to pass a bill barring felons from office and the President would have to sign it. Then the SCOTUS would have to determine if the law was constitutional or not.

Political parties might be able to ban felons from running for their party's nomination for an office. It seems to me that that would be kind of a tricky gray area. I don't think, however, that a state would be able to determine the qualifications for a federal office. We've had plenty of bigots run for federal office before and some of them have won. It's disgusting, but it seems totally legal to me. It scares me more that there are so many people who seem to have no regard for the Constitution and think we can just make up the rules as we go along.

Someone, I think it was Louis Brandeis, said that the freedom of speech means nothing if it does not include the right to say the unpopular thing.

I am thinking of the Supreme Court case of Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011), which was about the Westboro Baptist Church picketing a funeral. The court held that while what the Westboro people said was offensive in the extreme, they had the right to say it.

because of the reaction they always cause. When those fools come to town to express their opinions, you really see communities rally around whoever they target. It's quite heartening...

Louisiana was smart enough to elect a Democratic governor John Bel Edwards. This headline says "Louisiana refuses" and then in the "fine print" says "Louisiana Republicans".

It's a cheap shot. It is Louisiana bashing under the disguise of Republican bashing. Only kooks take David Duke seriously, and broadcasters who continue to take him seriously and give him free publicity are the problem.