[JTN]

Making a mockery of the primary system by hijacking or “spamming” the “other parties” primary process is NOT constitutional

Oh, I know. Of course, the Constitution doesn't say anything about this, but I'm sure it emanates from a penumbra or something.

This statement has NOTHING to do with the discussion. NOBODY is saying that people can’t “vote” for anyone they want (in the general election). We’re talking about corrupting the primary process of a political party. I’m saying that it is unethical at best, and at odds with the constitutional process to manipulate the results of a political party nomination by switching parties solely for that purpose, without adopting the belief systems of that party. It’s a SCAM, pure and simple.Now, you either know that and choose to applaud it, or you are ignorant of it and refuse to become informed. No matter which it is, you are dangerous, as is anyone like you willing to make up the rules of the game as you go.

I'm not making up the rules. Your elected representatives made up the rules. If you don't like those rules, contact your representative and ask him to try to change them. People who vote in accordance with those rules aren't violating the Constitution; they're following it.

[PlainOleAmerican]

Why am I not surprised that a Ron Paul supporter needs a law to tell him right from wrong???

[governmentstillsucks]

Oh, I know. Of course, the Constitution doesn't say anything about this, but I'm sure it emanates from a penumbra or something.

An interesting reference to the Griswold v. Connecticut case--in other words, creating a constitutional right out of whole cloth. A major factor in Roe v. Wade, and the companion case, Doe v. Bolton, securing the perceived right to abortion.

The Libertarian Party is pretty much pro-choice, isn't it? Wasn't Ron Paul the party's presidential nominee a few years back--and now he's Mr. Pro-Life? So what's changed, I have to ask.