Posted on 09/01/2005 4:54:43 PM PDT by freepatriot32
The Libertarian Party announced Wednesday that it plans to file a lawsuit challenging the State Board of Elections decision to drop the partys official status in North Carolina.
Were tired of being treated like second-class citizens, said Thomas Hill, state party chairman.
Hill said North Carolina has one of the most restrictive ballot access laws in the country and said even Iraq has more parties on the ballot.
Thats just vulgar, he added.
The state board decertified the Libertarian Party on Monday because the party failed to secure at least 75,000 signatures on a petition needed to remain on the ballot. The state reported that the Libertarians had secured only about 25,000 signatures.
IN MOORE Moore County Elections Director Glenda Clendenin is waiting for instructions from the state board before proceeding with local action.
At latest count, there were 103 Libertarians registered in Moore County. The county has 24,246 Republicans, 17,306 Democrats and 11,204 unaffiliated registrants.
Clendenin expects that the state will require county boards to notify local Libertarians by mail that the party has been decertified and that they have the choice of registering as Republicans, Democrats or unaffiliated.
Statewide, there are about 13,000 registered Libertarians.
However, relief was on the horizon Wednesday, when the state House of Representatives passed legislation that would make it somewhat easier to secure ballot access.
Known as the Electoral Fairness Act, the bill would reduce the number of signatures needed to retain a place on the ballot from 2 percent to 0.5 percent of the total votes in the gubernatorial and presidential races. Rep. Paul Miller, a Durham Democrat, introduced the bill, which must be approved by the Senate.
No kidding... If there were any truth in advertising laws that could be applied to the parties, the new GOP ads would go something like this...
"The Democratic Party is the 'Party of Big Government.' We're the 'Party of Bigger Government.' But at least we're not the Democrats."
Pretty soon ,the only reason to vote for the pubbies will be, "at least we're not the dems," and that's really not much of a reason to vote for them.
Mark
I don't settle for the lesser of two evils - that's evil, because the "lesser" has exploded spending, deficits and government.
One of the best bumper stickers I ever saw was
Vote for Satan. Why settle for the lesser of the evils!
Mark
Please show me exactly where that's located in the LP platform or bylaws, and I'll be happy to denounce the LP, right along with you. Otherwise, quit slandaring the LP.
Mark
A characteristic shared by the intellectuals of the looter persuasion and their "libertarian" comrades is the tendency to feign incomprehension when faced with uncomfortable facts. Socialists act as though you are speaking a foreign language when you bring up the initiation of force in connection with their calls for taxation and confiscation of property. Libertarians do the same when questioned about their party's call for repeal of child-molestation laws.
The following quotes from published libertarian platforms will make it explicitly clear that the legalization of child molestation is part and parcel of the Libertarian Party code.
From the 1982 Platform of the Libertarian Party:
"In particular we advocate:
b. The repeal of all laws regarding consensual sexual relations, including prostitution and solicitation, and the cessation of state oppression and harassment of homosexual men and women, that they, at last, be accorded their full rights as individuals."
"No individual rights should be denied or abridged by the laws of the United States or any state or locality on account of sex, race, color, creed, age, national origin or sexual preference."
"We believe that 'children' are human beings and, as such, have the same rights as any other human beings. Any reference in this Platform to the rights of human beings includes children."
"We regard the tragedies caused by unplanned, unwanted pregnancies to be aggravated, if not created, by government policies of censorship, restriction, regulation and prohibition. Therefore we call for the repeal of all laws which restrict anyone, including children, from engaging in voluntary exchanges of goods, services or information regarding human sexuality, reproduction, birth control, or related medical or biological technologies."
The 1986 platform preserved the above-cited language, but greatly expanded the "Children's Rights" article to include the following:
"We oppose all legally created or sanctioned discrimination against (or in favor of) children, just as we oppose government discrimination directed at any other artificially defined sub- category of human beings."
"We also support the repeal of all laws establishing any category of crimes applicable to children for which adults would not be similarly vulnerable, such as curfew, smoking and alcoholic beverage laws, and other status offenses. (...) We seek the repeal of all 'children's codes' of statutes which abridge due process protections for young people."
"Children should always have the right to establish their maturity by assuming administration and protection of their own rights, ending dependency upon their parents or other guardians and assuming all the responsibilities of adulthood."
These quotes make it clear to any thinking person that the Libertarian Party deems the recruiting of, say, six-year-old boys and girls into a life of prostitution, heterosexual or otherwise, an exercise of something the platform never defines - yet nevertheless refers to as "individual rights." Indeed, should the parents of children so used dare to question a procurer's "right" to engage their children in such a manner, let them read carefully before venturing to lift a finger to interfere. The Libertarian Platform (both versions) also reads:
"We condemn the attempts by parents or any others -- via kidnappings, conservatorships, or instruction under confinement - - to force children to conform to their parent's or any others' religious views."
The child-molester's "right" to entice children into "voluntary" sexual performances is defended at every turn in the platform. If the child is baited with candy rather than raped by outright physical force, the Libertarian pederast can declare the event a "consensual sexual relation," or a "voluntary exchange of goods and services regarding human sexuality," or even cite the child's "assumption" of the "administration and protection of its own rights." After all, the platform plainly describes the distinction between a fully-formed, rational adult and a preadolescent child as an "artificially defined subcategory of human beings." As for the parents, any attempt to interfere, especially if based on religious convictions, is classed as "kidnapping," a practice banned by force of Libertarian law.
The essential feature which distinguishes children from adults -a feature which the Libertarian platform eschews- is rational competence. Capitalist ethics are based on man's life as the fundamental standard of value, and on his rational faculty as the essential requirement for the preservation of that value. Capitalists recognize that individual rights are a moral principle. Libertarians, to the contrary, state that their "exclusion of moral approval or disapproval is deliberate" [!]. This attitude is eloquently underscored by the platform's perfidious distortion of truth.
In the real world, laws exist which bar adults from selling alcohol, tobacco, and the like to children. The Libertarian Party platform distorts the relationship and presents it as a law directed at children forbidding them to buy those substances, then leaps to the defense of "due process protections for young people." But then, respect for the truth is not something one expects from an organization having a "deliberate" policy of destroying moral distinctions.
Just for the heck of it I thought I'd add that North Carolina's appellate judges are all elected officials. They are not appointed. I guess one could argue they do the will of the people too, like any other elected officials.
LOL, whatever. Good luck with that personal issue.
Dan
But you're asking for the law to be changed by the court. That's different.
You, and other Libertarians, are alleging that the statute is unconstitutional. How, exactly? Is there a provision in the Constitution which sets forth how the eligibility of political parties to appear on the ballot shall be established? I must have missed that part.
Without such a provision in the Constitution, the legislature has the authority to set it. If you don't like how they set up the eligibility of political parties to appear on the ballot, then you need to remedy it through the legislature.
Beginning with an ad hominem attack is always the hallmark of intelligent debate.
How will voting for a Democrat or Republican ever change the statute.
I'm quite sure I didn't say anything about voting Democrat or Republican. Did you read my post?
They are the ones who passed the unconstitutional statute in the first place.
You, as others, have alleged that the statute requiring a certain number of signatures on a petition to qualify a political party to appear on the ballot is unconstitutional. How, exactly? What provision of the Constitution has been violated by this law? Every candidate may receive votes if he/she is written in on the ballot.
Are you claiming that any group that claims to be a political party should be given a slot on the ballot, regardless of the number its members?
Oh, and speaking of credibility, since you are defending an unconstitutional statute, you have none.
Neener neener.
I'm a libertarian in everything but name. Rules are rules, though. They didn't make the cut; they either have to drum up more support or live with it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.