All the briefs have now been filed in Kucinich v Texas Democratic Party, no. 8-50038, in the 5th Circuit. Kucinich was kept off this year’s presidential primary ballot in Texas because he wouldn’t sign a state party’s oath, promising to “fully support” the eventual presidential nominee of the national Democratic Party.
Kucinich argues that since the national Democratic Party accepted him as a bona fide Democratic candidate for president (which meant that he was invited into all the party’s presidential debates), the Texas Democratic Party has no business keeping him from its presidential primary. He also points out that the oath does not really relate to loyalty to the party itself. He mentions the hypothetical that the national convention could conceivably nominate someone who himself, or herself, doesn’t uphold the party’s platform. This case is being expedited, so the hearing is likely to be in the next few weeks.
fully = one more vague word in a loyalty oath.
support = one more vague word in a loyality oath.
Everybody *fully support* the U.S.A. regime and your State / local regimes ???
See the loyality oath cases in the Supremes in the 1950s – 1960s.
I wonder what the Democrats would say if, in the general election, every voter had to sign an oath saying “I swear to support whoever wins this election.”