EITHER YOU SIGN, VOWING THAT YOU ARE A REPUBLICAN, OR YOU DON'T GET TO VOTE?
YES, THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS!
THIS HEARKENS BACK TO CIVIL WAR DAYS!
THIS IS WHAT WAS DEMANDED BACK THEN TO MAKE SURE EVERY CITIZEN WAS PLEDGED TO THE 'UNION', NOT THE CONFEDERATE STATES.
"During the American Civil War, political prisoners and prisoners of war were often released upon taking an "oath of allegiance". Lincoln's Ten percent plan featured an oath to "faithfully support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the union of the States thereunder" as a condition for a Presidential pardon. During Reconstruction, retroactive loyalty oaths were proposed by Radical Republicans, which would have barred former Confederates and Confederate sympathizers from federal, state, or local offices."
LOYAL TO WHAT?
Loyalty oaths were common during World War II. In support of Roosevelt's National Recovery Administration, 100,000 school children marched to Boston Common and swore a loyalty oath administered by the mayor,
"I promise as a good American citizen to do my part for the NRA. I will buy only where the Blue Eagle flies."
ARE YOU A COMMIE?
Another use of loyalty oaths in the United States was during the 1950s and 1960s.
The Red Scare during the 1950s and the Congressional hearings chaired by Senator Joseph McCarthy helped to sustain a national mood of concern about communist agents and a fear such agents may injure the U.S. government through espionage or outright violence.
On March 21, 1947, concerned with Soviet subversive penetration and infiltration into the United States government by American citizens who held oaths of allegiance to a foreign power during war time, President Harry S Truman instituted a Loyalty Program, requiring loyalty oaths and background investigations on persons deemed suspect of holding party membership in organizations that advocated violent and anti-democratic programs.
Typically, a loyalty oath has wording similar to that mentioned in the U.S Supreme Court decision of Garner v. Board of Public Works, 341 U.S. 716 (1951).
IT IS LEGALLY BINDING!
AND VIRGINIA LOVES IT.
KEEPS OUT THE RIFF-RAFF. aka, NON-REPUBLICANS.
AND WHEN/IF THE DEMOCRATS USE THIS, IT WILL BE TO KEEP OUT REPUBLICAN VOTERS.
BUT WHEN EITHER "PARTY" USES IT, IT KEEPS OUT ALL OF US WHO ARE NEITHER "ELEPHANTS" NOR "JACKASSES".
AND THAT IS THE BIG PROBLEM WITH SUCH A "PLEDGE".
That idea, which has been proposed several times in recent years, has caused controversy in Virginia, one of about 14 states that hold “open primary” elections in which voters do not register by party.
VOTER ID WAS NOT ENOUGH, REDISTRICTING WAS NOT ENOUGH, FEAR CAMPAIGNS AIMED AT KEEPING THE POOR AND "COLOREDS" AWAY FROM THE POLLS WAS NOT ENOUGH, THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE, WHICH HANDS THE WHITE HOUSE TO WHOMEVER IT CHOOSES, WAS NOT ENOUGH. SOME WAY MUST BE FOUND, SAYETH THE GRAND OLD PARTY (GOP), TO INSURE PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN OR DON'T GET A VOTE!
HERE'S A WAY!
“It will turn away new Republican voters,” Corey A. Stewart, who heads Trump’s political operation in Virginia, said Thursday in reaction to the ruling. “But the establishment in Virginia doesn’t care. They would rather keep it small and keep it all, in terms of control.”
The plaintiffs in the case filed a request for a preliminary injunction pending their appeal in the U.S. District Court of Appeals and were denied that request.
In Virginia, the open primary system stems from desires for political control, said Mark J. Rozell, acting dean and professor of public policy at George Mason University’s School of Policy, Government, and International Affairs.
The system has been in effect for decades, going at least as far back as the days when Harry F. Byrd dominated state politics as the leader of the state Democratic Party during much of the first half of the 20th century. Byrd served as a state senator, Virginia governor and U.S. senator before retiring in 1965 after 50 years in politics.
“Given the one-party dominance in the state for many years, conservative Republicans had little choice other than to vote in Democratic primaries if they wanted to influence election outcomes,” he said. “Back then, nomination by the party guaranteed election.”
Today, Republican Party officials argue that there is too much potential for Democrats and independents to interfere with an already contentious presidential primary election that has 13 Republican candidates — making a loyalty pledge necessary.
In the lawsuit, they cited a Virginia election law that allows political parties to decide how to conduct primary elections, even if the state is coordinating the process with taxpayer dollars.
“Political parties have a right to determine how they nominate the candidates who represent them,” John Findlay, the state Republican Party’s executive director, said in a statement Thursday.
“The Republican Party of Virginia has a duty to defend its First Amendment right to free association, and we are very pleased that the court has denied the preliminary injunction, as we expected.”
YEAH, BABY! I BET YOU DANCED IN THE STREETS, RIGHT?
HOW MUCH DID THE JUDGE COST YOU?
WHAT ABOUT OTHER PEOPLES' RIGHTS TO FREE ASSOCIATION?
THEY DON'T GET THAT, RIGHT?
RIGHT AS IN "FAR RIGHT", "TEA PARTY RIGHT"?
The lawsuit’s plaintiffs — African American pastors Stephen A. Parson, Bruce L. Waller Sr. and Leon Benjamin — argued that the pledge will discourage minority voters and those who are poor from casting ballots. They also said that confusion about the pledge will lead to long lines at the polls, imposing a “burden of fear and backlash” that amounts to a literacy test for uneducated voters.
“This is not something we’ve engaged in or embarked on lightly,” Chuck Smith, who represents the pastors, said of the legal battle. “This issue is very important to Republicans, very important to the citizens of Virginia and, obviously, very important to the three plaintiffs.”
Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond’s School of Law, said there may be maneuvering room for Trump supporters to continue the fight in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.
In her ruling, Lauck expressed concern that absentee ballots being mailed out this week have instructions dealing with the loyalty oath that are different from what is printed for in-person ballots.
Absentee ballots carry language saying that a signed statement of intent will ensure that the ballot can be counted, but in-person ballots say a voter “refusing to sign the statement form cannot vote in this Republican Party nominating process,” Lauck noted.
AS ONE COMMENT OBSERVED:
" It is an OPEN primary, funded by the taxpayers and administered by the Commonwealth, not the Republican Party."
ANOTHER SAID: "You won't find a two-party system of government mentioned anywhere in the Constitution."
YET ANOTHER SAW THE RUSE: "If the primary is closed to either Dems or Reps, then non-affiliated people have no say in their government until critical decisions are made for them. This isn't freedom of choice!"
THAT DOESN'T MAKE A BIG OLD DAMN EITHER, KIDDIES.
THE GOP IS THE PARTY OF THE ELITE.
MUST CULL THOSE WHO DON'T WANT TO BE SERFS AND SERVANTS RULED BY THE ELITE...NOT THAT DEMOCRATS ARE ONE BIT BETTER.
The small difference could lead to potential voter confusion on March 1, Lauck wrote, calling it a matter “of significant concern.”
“I think what she is concerned about is that the voters have what they need in order to vote properly and understand what they’re doing,” Tobias said. “It could well be appealed by plaintiffs to the 4th Circuit.”
In other words, he said, “This could continue.”
LISTEN UP, AMERICANS, DESPITE WHAT VIRGINIA IS SELLING, THESE OATHS ARE LEGALLY BINDING.
"A loyalty oath is an oath of loyalty to an organization, institution, or state of which an individual is a member. In this context, a loyalty oath is distinct from a pledge or oath of allegiance. It is an affirmation by which a person signs a legally binding document or warrant.
Loyalty oaths that infringe on a person's ability to exercise a constitutional right must be narrowly focused to achieve a legitimate government objective. If an oath is overly broad or vague, it may be found unconstitutional.
Some loyalty oath statutes have been invalidated on the ground that they unconstitutionally infringe on freedom of association.
In Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183, 73 S. Ct. 215, 97 L. Ed. 216 (1952), the Court held that Oklahoma's loyalty oath offended due process because it indiscriminately penalized innocent association or membership in Communist or other subversive groups.
That oath required public employees to deny any past affiliation with such organizations.
Similarly, in Elfbrandt v. Russell, 384 U.S. 11, 86 S. Ct. 1238, 16 L. Ed. 2d 321 (1966), the Court invalidated Arizona's public employee loyalty oath on the ground that it infringed on the employees' freedom of association.
To satisfy the Constitution, such statutes may penalize only those who join a subversive organization with knowledge of the group's illegal objectives and Specific Intent to further them.
The Arizona statute denied public employment to anyone associated with a subversive organization, whether or not the person knew of the group's objectives or subscribed to them.
When disloyalty was discovered or even suspected, a person would be ask to sign a loyalty oath and agree not to continue whatever disloyal conduct was suspected.
Accordingly, the June Wheeling convention adopted the loyalty oath as follows: "I solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the laws made in pursuance thereof, as the supreme law of the land, anything in the Constitution and laws of the State of Virginia, or in the Ordinances of the Convention which assembled at Richmond on the 13th of February, 1861, to the contrary notwithstanding; and that I will uphold and defend the Government of Virginia as vindicated and restored by the Convention which assembled at Wheeling on the 11th day of June, 1861."
The loyalty oath was required if you were a public servant, such a teacher, judge, lawyer mayor, congressman or other public job. Once signed, a violation could land the violator in jail.
"During the 2004 presidential campaign, the campaign of George W. Bush sometimes required all attendants at its rallies to take an oath. Those who refused to take the oath were not allowed to attend the rally.
The "loyalty oath" was actually a pledge of endorsement. These endorsements were used during some of the campaign rallies in 2004. The Bush campaign asserted that the oath was valid because the president was conducting a partisan campaign event.
Opponents countered that the oath was intrusive to individual conscience and denied general public access to the president.
WELL, NOW IT DENIES ACCESS TO THE VOTING BOOTH!
BUT NOT JUST IN OLD VIRGINIA!
ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, OHIO... SIGN THAT OATH!
ALL REPUBLICANS WILL LOVE THE COURT RULING.
IT OPENS UP A WHOLE NEW BALLPARK FOR DENYING THE VOTE TO MILLIONS ACROSS AMERICA.
SOME DEMOCRATS WILL LIKE THIS AS WELL AS IT PRACTICALLY INSURES THAT THE DISENFRANCHISED VOTERS WILL NEVER AGAIN VOTE FOR A REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE.
MAY THIS BLOW UP IN ALL FACES WHICH SEE IT AS CONSTITUTIONAL.
ALLEGIANCE TO A POLITICAL PARTY IS NOWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION.
IT WASN'T MEANT TO BE.
ONE OF THE BIGGEST THREATS THE OLD FOUNDING FATHERS FEARED WAS THE EMERGENCE OF A TWO-PARTY SYSTEM.
WASHINGTON'S FAREWELL ADDRESS WARNED OF THE SAME THING.
Delivered at Congress Hall in Philadelphia, September 1796, examined what Washington saw as the two major threats to the nation, one domestic and the other foreign, which in the mid-1790s increasingly seemed likely to combine.
First, Washington warned of "the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party."
To Washington political parties were a deep threat to the health of the nation for they allowed "a small but artful and enterprising minority" to "put in the place of the delegated will of the Nation, the will of a party."
Washington admonished the country "to steer clear of permanent Alliances."
Foreign nations, he explained, could not be trusted to do anything more than pursue their own interests when entering international treaties.
THAT ADDRESS USED TO BE READ EVERY YEAR BEFORE CONGRESS ON WASHINGTON'S BIRTHDAY...UNTIL 1970.
IT MAY NEVER BE READ THERE AGAIN....
SUCH STATEMENTS ARE RARELY READ INSIDE A BROTHEL.