Barr Files Suit To Remove Obama And McCain From Texas Ballot

Austin American Statesman ^ | 9/16/08 | scott shepard

[fortheDeclaration]

So? So?!? So...it disproves your claim.

How so?

[fortheDeclaration]

Barr first raised the issue in a press release earlier this month. Ashley Burton, a spokesperson for the Texas Secretary of State’s office, responded at that time, saying, “Both parties made filings with our office before the deadline, supplemented their filings and will be on the November ballot.”

[fortheDeclaration]

Of course the same people calling Barr insane and worse were singing his praises when he was leading impeachment proceedings against Clinton.

He was right in impeaching Clinton, Clinton was obstructing justice.

How are those open borders coming along?

[EternalVigilance]

You’ve got your facts completely wrong. The CP has been around since ‘92, and there’s only one election they have any claim to have won that I’m aware of: one legislative seat in MT.

I’m not a part of the CP, and I’m not a Libertarian.

[zeugma]

How are those open borders coming along?

Perhaps you might want to talk with Juan McCain about that.

I just think it's amazing how prevalent the groupthink is here when someone leaves the party. Folks would do well to remember that this is a conservative site, not a republican one, and believe it or not that includes many folks with more libertarian leanings.

[sefarkas]

The chief benefit would deny McCain the TX electoral votes. When neither McCain nor Obama reach 270, the House of Representatives gets to decide. The lopsided majority of rats in the House will put Obama in the Oval Office.

Pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment, the House of Representatives is required to go into session "immediately" to vote for President if no candidate for President receives a majority (270 votes) of the 538 possible electoral votes.

In this event, the House of Representatives is limited to choosing from among the three candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each state delegation has a single vote. To be elected, a candidate must receive an absolute majority of state votes (26) in order for that candidate to become the President-elect. Additionally, delegations from at least two-thirds of all the states must be present for voting to take place. The House continues balloting until a candidate receives an absolute majority of the state votes. This situation would most likely occur only when more than two candidates receive electoral votes, but could happen in an election in which only two candidates receive electoral votes and each receives an equal number of electoral votes.

[fortheDeclaration]

[How are those open borders coming along?]

Perhaps you might want to talk with Juan McCain about that. I just think it's amazing how prevalent the groupthink is here when someone leaves the party. Folks would do well to remember that this is a conservative site, not a republican one, and believe it or not that includes many folks with more libertarian leanings.

My leanings are very libertarian as well,(forthe Declaration!), we were discussing the Libertarian Party and its attempt to undermine the Republican Party while claiming to be the 'Party of Principle'.

It takes alot of principle to allow the Democrats to win close elections while maintaining how 'pure' the Libertarian Party is.

[fortheDeclaration]

You’ve got your facts completely wrong. The CP has been around since ‘92, and there’s only one election they have any claim to have won that I’m aware of: one legislative seat in MT. I’m not a part of the CP, and I’m not a Libertarian.

No, my facts are correct.

Being around since 92 makes the Constitution Party a new Party in my view.

And that one win is one more contested election then the Libertarians have won, which have been around since the 1970's.

As for you being a member of either Party, I didn't say you were.

[zeugma]

It takes alot of principle to allow the Democrats to win close elections while maintaining how 'pure' the Libertarian Party is.

Personally, I have issues with the Libertarian party as well, but I think it's kinda nice to have an alternative to socialist party A or socialist party B. Noone is forced to vote for any LP candidate, and in fact the entire media (both right and left leaning) demonizes them beyond all recognition IMO.

If the Republican Party wants to get the votes of folks who would prefer liberty to socialism and creeping tyranny, they should stand up for the liberty of the individual more often.

[fortheDeclaration]

[It takes alot of principle to allow the Democrats to win close elections while maintaining how 'pure' the Libertarian Party is.]

Personally, I have issues with the Libertarian party as well, but I think it's kinda nice to have an alternative to socialist party A or socialist party B. Noone is forced to vote for any LP candidate, and in fact the entire media (both right and left leaning) demonizes them beyond all recognition IMO. If the Republican Party wants to get the votes of folks who would prefer liberty to socialism and creeping tyranny, they should stand up for the liberty of the individual more often.

Yea, that is the typical Libertarian Party line but the fact is that most are just anarchists who just want to see all form of Government ended.

The only real alternative to the GOP is the Democratic Party, not the Libertarian Party which hasn't placed a single candidate in office by winning a contested election.

If any Libertarian were concerned about moving the GOP rightward, they would join it, but that would mean actually making a commitment to a Political Party that wants to govern not just talk.