Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Monday August 08 2016, @03:17AM   Printer-friendly
from the representation-is-a-privilege dept.

Ballot Access News reports:

On August 5, U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer, a Bush Jr. appointee, ruled against Gary Johnson and Jill Stein in their debates lawsuit. The case had been filed on September 28, 2015, and is Johnson v Commission on Presidential Debates, U.S. District Court, D.C., 1:15cv-1580.

[...] The 27-page decision[Redirects to a PDF] [...] says, "Because Plaintiffs have no standing and because antitrust laws govern commercial markets and not political activity, those claims fail as a matter of well-established law."

[...] Footnote three, based on the judge's own research (or the research of her clerks), has factual errors. The judge relied on election returns published by the FEC, but the FEC returns do not say which candidates were [...] in states with a majority of electoral college votes, and the opinion's list of candidates is erroneous.

[...] Another factual error in the decision is on page 21. The decision says Ralph Forbes, an independent candidate for U.S. Senate, lost a case over debates in the U.S. Supreme Court in 1998. Actually Forbes was a candidate for U.S. House.

In the comments, Richard Winger notes a similar case.

the lawsuit Level the Playing Field v FEC is still pending, before another judge, in the same court

The presidential debates were previously moderated by the League of Women Voters (1976, 1980, 1984). The Democrats and Republicans screwed things up in 1988. The Commission on Presidential Debates, a corporation controlled by the Democratic and Republican parties, has run each of the presidential debates held since 1988.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @06:38AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @06:38AM (#385661)

    Nowhere does the Constitution give the Federal government the power to form another offensive or defensive force

    Article I, Section. 8.

    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
    ...
    To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

    To provide and maintain a Navy;

    To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

    As planes didn't exist at the time and could not even be conceived, the air force would fall under the concept of "armies", and indeed, it was known as part of the army for quite a long time after the invention of planes and their integration into warfare. The navy was listed as completely distinct because the founders feared a standing army would be used for oppression, but a standing navy was critical at the time for protecting the nation's sovereignty.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @09:01PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @09:01PM (#385957)

    Yet we have a standing army. They use a cute little trick every few years to work around this restriction, but it doesn't change that they're violating the constitution.

    What's funny is that pretty much everyone would agree that we should have a standing army, so they could easily amend the constitution to allow for it.

  • (Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday August 10 2016, @05:46AM

    by dry (223) on Wednesday August 10 2016, @05:46AM (#386138) Journal

    It still doesn't mention an Air force and makes a point of treating the Army and Navy differently. Amend it and make it clear.