[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

The INCREDIBLE Impacts of Methylene Blue

The LARGEST Eruptions since the Merapi Disaster in 2010 at Lewotobi Laki Laki in Indonesia

Feds ARREST 11 Leftists For AMBUSH On ICE, 2 Cops Shot, Organized Terror Cell Targeted ICE In Texas

What is quantum computing?

12 Important Questions We Should Be Asking About The Cover Up The Truth About Jeffrey Epstein

TSA quietly scraps security check that every passenger dreads

Iran Receives Emergency Airlift of Chinese Air Defence Systems as Israel Considers New Attacks

Russia reportedly used its new, inexpensive Chernika kamikaze drone in the Ukraine

Iran's President Says the US Pledged Israel Wouldn't Attack During Previous Nuclear Negotiations

Will Japan's Rice Price Shock Lead To Government Collapse And Spark A Global Bond Crisis

Beware The 'Omniwar': Catherine Austin Fitts Fears 'Weaponization Of Everything'

Roger Stone: AG Pam Bondi Must Answer For 14 Terabytes Claim Of Child Torture Videos!

'Hit Us, Please' - America's Left Issues A 'Broken Arrow' Signal To Europe

Cash Jordan Trump Deports ‘Thousands of Migrants’ to Africa… on Purpose

Gunman Ambushes Border Patrol Agents In Texas Amid Anti-ICE Rhetoric From Democrats

Texas Flood

Why America Built A Forest From Canada To Texas

Tucker Carlson Interviews President of Iran Mosoud Pezeshkian

PROOF Netanyahu Wants US To Fight His Wars

RAPID CRUSTAL MOVEMENT DETECTED- Are the Unusual Earthquakes TRIGGER for MORE (in Japan and Italy) ?

Google Bets Big On Nuclear Fusion

Iran sets a world record by deporting 300,000 illegal refugees in 14 days

Brazilian Women Soccer Players (in Bikinis) Incredible Skills

Watch: Mexico City Protest Against American Ex-Pat 'Invasion' Turns Viole

Kazakhstan Just BETRAYED Russia - Takes gunpowder out of Putin’s Hands

Why CNN & Fareed Zakaria are Wrong About Iran and Trump

Something Is Going Deeply WRONG In Russia

329 Rivers in China Exceed Flood Warnings, With 75,000 Dams in Critical Condition

Command Of Russian Army 'Undermined' After 16 Of Putin's Generals Killed At War, UK Says

Rickards: Superintelligence Will Never Arrive


(s)Elections
See other (s)Elections Articles

Title: Virginia GOP Will Require Voters To Sign ‘Loyalty Oath’
Source: OpEd News
URL Source: http://www.opednews.com/populum/linkframe.php?linkid=143491
Published: Jan 1, 2012
Author: Elizabeth Hartfield
Post Date: 2012-01-01 15:13:19 by Original_Intent
Ping List: *US INDUSTRIAL WAR MACHINE*     Subscribe to *US INDUSTRIAL WAR MACHINE*
Keywords: NAZI Party, UnAmerican, Filthy, Fascists
Views: 455
Comments: 18

Less than a week after announcing that only two GOP presidential candidates qualified to appear on their ballot, the Republican Party of Virginia has adopted a new measure that may leave voters in the state scratching their heads: a loyalty oath.

On Wednesday the Virginia State Board of Elections approved a request from the Virginia GOP that will require voters to sign a loyalty oath in order to participate in the state’s presidential primary on March 6. A spokesman for the state’s election board tells ABC News that although some details are still in the works, voters wishing to cast a ballot must take the pledge.

“We’re still working out the details for how things will work on election day,” says Justin Riemer, spokesman for Virginia’s State Board of Elections, “but the instructions state that they must sign before voting.”

Voters do not register with a party in Virginia; thus the commonwealth’s primary is open to all residents, not just members of the Republican party. The oath, which reads “I, the undersigned, pledge that I intend to support the nominee of the Republican party for president,” is intended to deter non-Republicans from participating in the process unless they are serious about supporting the eventual GOP candidate.

“I think there was a desire to try and keep the Republican party for Republicans,” explains Kyle Kondik, a political analyst for the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics. “It’s the one barrier to entry that the Republican party can put up to try and keep voting limited to people in the club.”

Kondik points out that the oath, however, is not enforceable from a legal standpoint, since voters are guaranteed the right to a private ballot.

“It’s an honor system,” says Kondik. “It doesn’t have any legally binding authority. People can go to the primary, sign the pledge and then vote for their candidate and then vote for Obama or a third-party candidate in the fall.”

Calls to the Republican Party of Virginia for comment were not immediately returned.


Poster Comment:

Of course the real reason for the attempt to limit who votes is that Ron Paul has a lot of support outside of the traditional Country Club NeoCon brainwashed Party Uber Alles crowd. So, what this is is an oblique attempt to cut into the support for Ron Paul and for traditional Constitutional Values.Subscribe to *US INDUSTRIAL WAR MACHINE*

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 11.

#2. To: Original_Intent (#0)

I dont see how this could effect Ron Paul or anyone.
The pledge is meaningless and unenforceable.

Armadillo  posted on  2012-01-01   17:24:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Armadillo (#2)

I dont see how this could effect Ron Paul or anyone.
The pledge is meaningless and unenforceable.

True that it is not enforceable but it is not meaningless. It is a subtle form of intimidation. Most people are honest and do behave honestly most of the time, and feel bad when they do not. That acts as a natural impediment to an individual who cannot reason around that. Recognizing it as an act of intimidation I would have no moral compunction in acceding to it and then completely ignoring it as a specious attempt to control an election outcome, but that is just me.

Original_Intent  posted on  2012-01-01   17:30:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Original_Intent (#3)

True that it is not enforceable but it is not meaningless. It is a subtle form of intimidation. Most people are honest and do behave honestly most of the time, and feel bad when they do not. That acts as a natural impediment to an individual who cannot reason around that. Recognizing it as an act of intimidation I would have no moral compunction in acceding to it and then completely ignoring it as a specious attempt to control an election outcome, but that is just me.

Mental reservations do come in handy at times, eh?

James Deffenbach  posted on  2012-01-01   19:41:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: James Deffenbach (#10)

Mental reservations do come in handy at times, eh?

Well it comes down to a moral and ethical decision. Since the obvious intent of the oath is unethical then the greatest good is to be willing to accept responsibility for signing the unethical prerequisite and then disregarding it as of no weight. Sometimes life presents us with tricky moral questions and how we resolve them is a reflection of our own character. Here the decision is not whether or not to accept the oath but whether or not an oath demanded under what amounts to false pretenses and duress is binding? The obvious intent is to prevent those not already Brainwashed, Kool-Aid drinking, Gut Pardee Mempers from exercising their voice in the decision as to which candidate is best. Therefore what is not at first obvious is resolved - it is more moral and ethical, on balance, to accept the oath while regarding it as a non-binding oath given under duress.

Original_Intent  posted on  2012-01-01   20:09:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 11.

#16. To: Original_Intent (#11)

Yes. When someone wants you to swear to an oath (any oath) one should keep in mind that there is a biblical injunction against taking oaths. Further, when someone supposedly in authority wants you to "swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" one has to ask oneself whether by telling the truth and the whole truth might bring harm to the innocent or perhaps cause him to waive one or more of his rights. I will give an example. Suppose now that they have passed the NDAA and given Obama powers unknown to any actual president--the power to deny Americans of any and all due process and to imprison them just because he doesn't like them--and you knew where someone was that he wanted to imprison "just because" would you have a duty to "tell the truth"? I think not. I think your duty would be to lie because they have no right to the truth and you have no obligation to tell them the truth.

James Deffenbach  posted on  2012-01-02 00:14:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 11.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]