Judge rules Kucinich can't be on Texas ballot

Source: Associated Press

1/11/2008, 1:23 p.m. EST
The Associated Press

AUSTIN (AP) — A federal judge agreed Friday that the state Democratic Party can refuse to allow presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich onto the Texas ballot because he wouldn't sign a party pledge.

Kucinich and his singer-supporter Willie Nelson sued the party to try to get Kucinich on the March 4 primary election ballot even though Kucinich refused to sign part of the oath on his ballot application that would commit him to "fully support" the eventual Democratic nominee.

Kucinich may appeal to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, possibly as soon as Monday, said his attorney, Donald McTigue.


A paramount issue for Kucinich in the dispute is his opposition to the war in Iraq and his belief in "not using the war as an instrument of foreign policy," McTigue said. The congressman from Ohio does not want to be bound to supporting a Democratic candidate who disagrees with him on that and other issues, he said...



Read more: http://www.cleveland.com/newsflash/cleveland/index.ssf?/base/politics-2/1200073494172930.xml&storylist=cleveland

like the Dem nominee?

Dennis is getting to be a pain in the ass.

:evilgrin:

Do you think it's normal to sign a 'loyalty oath'? Sounds like something Republicans require their candidates to do...

supporting the Dem candidate whoever it is, but when it comes to old Dennis, why HE CAN STAND ON PRINCIPAL.

Some people are such out and out hypocrites.

Don't hold me accountable and accuse me for what other people have said.

NT!

:sarcasm:

supporting the Dem candidate whoever it is, but when it comes to old Dennis, why HE CAN STAND ON PRINCIPAL.

Some people are such out and out hypocrites.

I agree with Kucinich. Loyalty oaths are bogus.

:shrug:

whether he signed one in 2004 is irrelevant. It's unconstitutional.

Unless perhaps Mr. Kucinich hadn't read the constitution before 2004.

in a round about manner. Very undemocratic of you.... very consistent with your other right leaning tripe.

:shrug:

Yesterday is irrelevant. Kucinich signing one then does not equate to supporting a loyalty oath now, nor does it mean he doesn't support democracy. It was a requirement, one he obviously disagrees with today, but one you wish to defend today.

So you think anyone who has signed a loyalty oath in the past because they were REQUIRED to, supports loyalty oaths in general? What goofey sophistry.... come now, you can do better than that.

You on the other hand defend this loyalty oath because it helps corporatists such as yourself in keeping populists like Dennis Kucinich from being a part of our so-called Democratic process. Admit it.

you will be hedged at every corner and you will lose if you do not sell out. I love Kucinich but he had a snowballs chance at the begining and he is being stopped at every corner he refuses to cut. How many candidates before have signed the pledge and have barely read it? or read it and said "easy enough".

expected to sell out your civil rights in return for ballot access.

:shrug:

Maybe I'm dreaming, but I'd like to think that the treatment being given Kucinich by his own party will start to wake up people over how corrupt the whole system has become. Maybe the next time someone refused to sell out their principles and gets hedged at every corner, more people will be willing to stand up and say, "Stop it! He's MY choice, how dare you treat him like this!"

This is the primary, not the general election.

I got a little ahead of myself. It is so wierd to still be caring about who is getting the delegates/nomination after the last three election cycles.

I'd prefer not to be party to a coronation, Thank you.

Clinton or Obama?

Both Hillary and Obama are corporate candidates and whoever wins, we all lose. The corporations, as revealed by the US Chamber of Commerce will do anything to squash even a hint of populist sentiment.
That is a fix.
From there, the only alternative is revolution.

....a "revolutionary" vote for a third party candidate, like Kucinich.


.

Truly, I'm shocked that a Bush appointee in the state of Texas would rule against Kucinich. You mean the political machine doesn't want to let the author of H Res 333 to Impeach Cheney, the guy who is preparing a 50 count charge against POTUS 43, an further opportunities to advance his candidacy? The one who wishes to find green renewable energy sources is being silenced in the oil boom state! How can it be?
I bet they get a different answer in New Orleans, we all know how the establishment there cares about truth, justice and equality.

edited for my own ignorance. Wish Duh would have the decency to do a little self editing.

They do this kind of stuff in dictatorships. And the US wants to spread democracy around the world? :rofl:
























































I'm sorry, I just had to say that. ;)

Believe me those of us that try to change the system it is very frustrating. Too sad.

:hi:

She is from Argentina but has been in the US for many years.

When she went to take the citizenship test, one of the questions was: "Are you willing to bear arms in defense of your country?"

She was appalled and wanted to say no but the attorney told her she would be denied citizenship if she did not agree.

She was able to describe her willingness to help her country and said she "would like to think that she would have the courage to protect herself and her family if it was necessary" but wouldn't commit to bearing arms.

She will find out in a couple months if that worked, but she is now concerned about having to actually swear to it when she takes the citizenship pledge.

I guess an actual citizen has the right to be a conscientious objector but you can't become a citizen if you are already one.

I'm sorry. But if you have to pledge "to bear arms in defense of your country", there is something seriously wrong.

I would never do it.

why would a country take a citizen who is not willing to defend their new country if needed? Your friend is obviously not a pacifist because she would fight to defend her children, so why not fight to defend other people's children?

And yes, natural born citizens have greater rights than those seeking naturalization. The difference goes away once you swear the oath, but until then, not so much.

pac·i·fism (ps-fzm) n.

1. The belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully.
2. a. Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes.
...b. Such opposition demonstrated by refusal to participate in military action.


It does NOT mean you won't defend your proximate community.

It just means in the context of USAmerika, the new Roman Empire, that people who, like me in 1964 upon realizing the insanity of Vietnam, choose not to let some fat-capitalist-fuck tell who we must kill for their short term financial gain.

Piss on ALL FLAGS!!!!


I'd tell her to lie her ass off if necessary -- it's all bullshit and foma anyway...

USAmerikan "citizenship" is primarily a license to exploit and live off the resources that belongs to others -- to rob the Earth of 25% of its riches for the fat 3% of its population... Of course the entrance barriers are set artificially high.

I'm reminded of Groucho Marx -- "I wouldn't want to join any club that would have me as a member!"

That's exactly the kind of stuff that Dennis is trying to change.

His fighting this could give his views more public notice than any number of votes he might get if he was on the ballot - provided of course that the media will even mention this. But since they don't talk about him in any other context I don't expect them to change tactics now.

First I thought it was because he only gets 1 or 2% of the votes, but then I saw they started to mention Richardson (4%) and Ron Paul. Now I'm completely lost why they do this.

All rabid far left anti-war progressives in Holland are rooting for HRC to win. :crazy: (Because her last name is Clinton.) But they seriously believe she's a liberal progressive.

about this oath.

If you'll go back to when the story broke, everyone got upset about an oath stating that 'you will support the Democratic candidate.'

That oath has been required by the Texas Dem. Party since the Repugnants started to file as Dems and then change party. Tom DeLay's answer was to gerrymander all the Texas Districts.

The oath was a try to stop the Repugs and Tom DeLay from making of Texas a Repugnant stronghold.

Now that is what foolish little Dennis is standing against. He frequently does stupid things. This is just one of them.

There was a good reason for the oath in Texas. Dennis wants to play in THEIR sandbox, then he has to play by their rules. Everybody else in the Dem Party understands this, Dennis doesn't or just wants more public attention.

When you add up all the really dumb things Dennis does, the list is almost endless. Case in point: runs off to NH to demand a recount while leaving Diebold alone in his Ohio district for over 7 years. Affluent districts in NH used Diebolds. The poorer districts had to rely on old tech paper and pencil.

This is a no brainer.

And I am 100% behind it.

Has someone explained to Dennis why this is necessary in our state? Why it is important to the TX Democratic Party?

We Texas Dems are constantly fighting on the front lines here to protect our elections and our candidates, a little respect for our reasons might be in order.

You think totalitarian loyalty oaths are okay. Dennis Kucinich rightly disagrees. I don't care what the so-called 'reason' for the oath is. It requires a candidate to pledge loyalty to the nominee, while he has no idea who that nominee is going to be. Maybe it's okay in your book to honor party over principles, but Kucinich doesn't and his supporters (the critical thinking part of the party) agree with him.

As far as your smears against him about Ohio and Diebold are concerned: you know very well what you're saying isn't true. Kucinich did challenge Diebold in 2003. Sources and articles were posted in the thread about Kucinich demanding a recount in New Hampshire. But apparently, you think it's 'stupid' to ask for a recount when not all the people's votes have been counted...

This is hardly an example of a totalitarian loyalty oath. And it smacks of a lack of critical thinking not to grasp the distinction.

:shrug:

that having principled stands and following through on them rather than the normal Texas method (and not JUST Texas) of elected office being a license to steal might be more effective with the electorate than loyalty oaths?

Loyalty to the fat fucks who are ripping off the people for their short term financial gain? Screw that!

:shrug:

it's a prime reason for the cration of the Democratic Underground. And repukes, when they say they want to "spread democracy", mean something else entirely

but there never has been such a thing as "democracy" in USAmerika...

Thanks.

And you're right -- there never has been and never will be a democracy in USAmerika.

It wasn't set up to be a democracy. That was NOT the intent of the "founders".

It cannot become a democracy under the current Constitutional framework.

Anyone who thinks differently is just deluded.


The idea of this corporate capitalist owned "republic" spreading "democracy" is laughable at best and deadly to the poor bastards to whom they carry their fucked up "democracy" at worst...


The corporate capitalist masters of USAmerika will run this bloody ship against the icebergs of global warming, peak oil and corporate greed at flank speed for their short term profit and their ain't shit we can do about it...

supporters in the Democratic Party.

Dennis Kucinich won't sign a loyalty oath for that reason, yet there is bipartisan support for The Bush Doctrine, which failed, and involves crimes against humanity.

That is the sole reason he refuses to sign loyalty oaths-the use of war as policy.

Is it reasonable to assume infer that he supported the use of war as policy back then?

And I will most likely vote for Kucinich in my primary.

Presumably Dennis is a member of the Democratic party, correct? He is self-affiliated with the party and I assume enjoys some of the perks of membership whatever they may be. Tangible or intangible.

If one of the requirements of inclusion is to pledge to support the eventual nominee for that same party, that seems a fair request.

If Dennis cannot bring himself to make that pledge, I applaud his refusal to sign the document. However, his refusal comes with consequences of which he was well aware. So run as an independent.

This isn't quite the same thing as a blanket and blind loyalty oath which seems to be confusing some people. Dennis is perfectly free to engage in the democratic process, just not as a Democrat because he is unwilling to accept their terms.

I still disagree with it. And I do believe if it were challenged enough it would lose in court. The precedent has been made in the past due to an irrational fear of there being communists in our own country who were possibly intending on over throwing our government during the cold war. A bit freaky and paranoid. Seeing as to how Bush abused his oath of office, I see this as a petty exclusionary tactic to keep a populist like Dennis out of the primary process. Score another for the corporatists in our corporately compromised political party.

here it is:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt1cfrag2_user.html

Of course, he did sign the oath then.

...also had to go to court to get on a ballot?

Somehow, things always break against my man Dennis.

The New Hampshire Democratic Party had a similar loyalty oath requirement for people that wanted to vote in the primary. It backfired and led to Lyndon Johnson's dismal showing against Gene McCarthy. It was wartime then!

:shrug:

I do not see a constitutional issue here. See #35.

that judge should lose its job.

:shrug:

but I know why you keep bringing it up and so do many other DUers.

The broken record approach is a dead giveaway.
Get some help Freddie!

I cannot understand why

Loyalty oaths are unconstitutional therefore it doesn't matter what he did in 2004 and you know it. Until someone asks him why he went along with it the first time, no one will really know. You are trying to defend loyalty oaths because you know it's wrong and unconstitutional and you are trying to find a way to justify it today. That's pretty pathetic.

:shrug:

A candidate for President is refusing to sign something which he says in unconstitutional. Yet he signed it before. One of two thing is the case:

1. It is not unconstitutional

2. It is unconstitutional, and he willingly signed it before.

Karl Rove, is that you?

that the courts have previously held that requirements like the one imposed in Texas are unconstitutional.

Unless, of course, you really aren't one poster, but are 4 members of the SCOTUS.

Don't swiftboat me, bro.

What happened to free and fair elections.. This is a Federal election so all states should be forced to sponsor whoever runs .... period...:mad:

*

the rules of membership IN the party. It IS their party, after all.

If Dennis is not loyal to that Party, like Lieberman wasn't, then he doesn't have to belong.

This is what democracy is all about. You wanna join my club....that's fine....anyone is welcome, as long as they abide by the rules of my club. And since it's my club, I set the rules. You aren't forced to join my club. You can join Joe's club down at the corner, if you want. But then you'll have to abide by Joe's club rules.

You wanna set the rules? You gotta either have your own club, or go solo. But if you want either political party to give you money and access to voters, then you have to abide by their rules.

if I can figure out how. We have weird voting machines, so I do not know if that is possible. THEN I am switching my party affiliation to independent. Loyalty oaths are undemocratic. If I had known they required it, I would never have registered as a Democrat in Texas.

I would look into voting absentee. That way there is a paper trail.

and any other Real Progressive of good will with positive ideals and principles...to register as a Green.

Maybe it's time for the good Dems to dump the near-right-wing of the two-right-wings of the Big Business Party, eh?

Kucinich should not be excluded from the ballot just because he doesn't want to sign a loyalty oath. I hope the appeal is in his favor.