No the Constitution does not say that only R's and D's have a right to be heard, but let me ask you a question:
If I go to Arizona and I declare myself as a Presidential Candidate, why can't I be up there, debating with President Bush and Senator Kerry? If one-hundred others do the same, why can't they?
The reasons are the rules of eligibility. In order to prevent the anarchy of the above, the rules of the debate commission are in force.
This thread seems to be assuming that the rules of the debate are prejudicial against this particular candidate. If so, what are the rules and how is it prejudicial?
The problem is that the rules (not just the Debate Commission, but Election law in general) are such that they preclude any chance of anyone ever breaking the two party system in this country and it is the two parties that conspire to keep it that way.
Look what The Democrats are doing to Nader in the courts all over the country.
That means they are operating a cartel and the people are being denied choice.
This thread seems to be assuming that the rules of the debate are prejudicial against this particular candidate. If so, what are the rules and how is it prejudicial?
I think Badnarik's argument is that if you are going to hold a debate between only two of several candidates in a public election then it is not a public event and the candidates in question should provide their own facilities and resources to do that. You and I cannot get free use of a university campus and national airwaves to broadcast a private discussion, so why should Bush and Kerry?
The rules of the debate are that invitations are issued to candidates which poll at or above 15% in nationwide surveys.
How that objective criterion is prejudicial against the lunatic fringe, I do not know...