why would gary johnson be on the ballot in every other state except OK? or did i miss something here? im asking because i dont honestly know
Libertarian Party came up short of the over 51,000 signatures required (around 5,300 is the national average).
Americans Elect got on the ballot (spending several times more $$$) and nominated Gary Johnson in Oklahoma. In a letter from the Attorney General's office to the Election Board dated August 16 (but not published or delivered to affected parties until August 30, possibly to prevent the outcome of an appeal from being decided before the deadline to have the ballots printed and shipped overseas), the AG advised the Election Board to not included the state party's nominee because the national party disbanded citing a possible violation of trademark usage (even through the its been ruled before that political parties cannot enforce trademarks against one another) and Americans Elect party bylaws deferring all state-level decisions to the now-defunct national party (even though the bylaws could not be enforced unless a suit was brought by the now-defunct national party).
On September 13, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that even though American Elect had gotten the required signatures, they would not have been allowed on the ballot anyway because the party was not going to hold a national convention even if they disbanded - i.e. Oklahoma would not recognize the candidate elected by the online nomination process outlined in their bylaws. In other words, incidentals of Oklahoma election law overrides any political party bylaws. The Oklahoma Supreme Court also ruled that Americans Elect national party bylaws did not authorize state-level parties and that such bylaws take precedence over Oklahoma election law (a state-level party must gather the required signatures and is the party that is recognized under state law independent of any national organization).
So here we are another election cycle, and we've once again probably spent enough money on ballot drives and the related lawsuits that we probably could have funded ~15 competitive state House candidates and 8-10 competitive state Senate candidates ("competitive" is based on campaign expenditure filings of candidates in the previous cycle and would likely result in a runoff. When we do have ballot access, we have to get 10% of the Gubernatorial or Presidential vote in the state (after fighting legal battles that typically involve injunctions against actual campaign efforts until close to Election Day) while state law protects the Republican and Democratic parties in the event they fall below that threshold.
Why, now that we have unbeatable majorities in both State house and Senate, we can get this fixed! Oh wait...
Veggie Meat said:
I bet they don't teach about that process in Jr. High civics classes -- it would certainly put a damper on "isn't our constitutional republican form of government great" spirit.
???? Which has what to do, with the GOP losing their way?????
The President of the US does not pass any laws.
It does not matter what Romney believes, it's what he CAN do that will matter. George W. Bush would have approved an assault weapon ban also, but he did not go out of his way to promote it, nor did he appoint Supreme Court Justices who were anti 2A.
Obama did. His executive level appointments such as Eric Holder, and his supreme court appointments (elena Kagan & Sonia Sotomayor) are very much anti gun.
Bottom line: if you want 2-3 more supreme court justices like Kagan & Sotomayor, vote for Obama. If you want 2-3 Supreme Court justices like Elito and Roberts, vote for Romney.
I am pretty sure if we get 2-3 more Supreme Court justices like Kagan and Sotomayor, we can kiss our individual right to own firearms good bye, insofar as it is recognized in the US. Constitution. With added pressure from the UN, I give our freedoms till about 2016 before they are officially removed.
With Roberts, Elito etc, I am pretty sure they will uphold Heller v/s DC and other pro 2A rulings.
So anyone who votes Obama or does NOT vote Romney, well, you are essentially supporting an anti-2A position....at least that's my analysis.
It does not matter what Romney believes, it's what he CAN do that will matter. George W. Bush would have approved an assault weapon ban also, but he did not go out of his way to promote it, nor did he appoint Supreme Court Justices who were anti 2A.
Obama did. His executive level appointments such as Eric Holder, and his supreme court appointments (elena Kagan & Sonia Sotomayor) are very much anti gun.
Bottom line: if you want 2-3 more supreme court justices like Kagan & Sotomayor, vote for Obama. If you want 2-3 Supreme Court justices like Elito and Roberts, vote for Romney.
I am pretty sure if we get 2-3 more Supreme Court justices like Kagan and Sotomayor, we can kiss our individual right to own firearms good bye, insofar as it is recognized in the US. Constitution. With added pressure from the UN, I give our freedoms till about 2016 before they are officially removed.
With Roberts, Elito etc, I am pretty sure they will uphold Heller v/s DC and other pro 2A rulings.
So anyone who votes Obama or does NOT vote Romney, well, you are essentially supporting an anti-2A position....at least that's my analysis.
The problem is that they do not want to work at the local level and fix the problems they see. They want it handed to them by the same people who's jobs they are trying to take.
The Senate controls who makes it onto the Supreme Court.
For what its worth, a large majority of Romney's appointees in Massachusetts were just as much or more "liberal" than Kagan and Sotomayor.
Similar threads
