Knox Area Libertarian Party

Original article.

The two party system and its stranglehold on Tennessee’s ballot access may be nearing an end. On September 20, 2010 Judge Haynes, of the U.S. District Court of Middle Tennessee, ruled in favor of summary judgment for the plaintiff. The case being: Libertarian Party of Tennessee, Anthony Wall, Green Party of Tennessee, Kathleen A. Culver, Constitution Party of Tennessee, and Joan Castle VS Mark Goins, Coordinator of Elections for the State of Tennessee, and Tre Hargett, Secretary of State for the State of Tennessee.

The plaintiffs’, complaint centered around the facts that certain provisions of Tennessee’s ballot access statutes systematically discriminate against minor political parties and their members by effectively excluding minor parties from achieving statewide recognition and ballot access in violation of their first amendment rights to vote, to express their political speech, and to associate as a political party. The main statutes targeted by the lawsuit included: Party membership requirements for petition signatures, the requirement of 2.5% of the total vote in the last gubernatorial election for recognition as a statewide political party, and the defendants’ policy of setting a deadline for party recognition petitions of 120 days before the primary election. The plaintiffs asserted that these barriers effectively bar minor political parties from ballot access in Tennessee elections.

In response, the defendants only argued that the plaintiffs’ expert’s statements and opinions about Tennessee’s electoral statutes precluding minor party participation, should not be considered by the court because those opinions are unreliable and irrelevant. Who amongst us would consider testimony from Richard Winger, the utmost authority on minor parties, as unreliable and irrelevant? Not anyone involved with a ‘third party’ and more importantly not the judge. Richard Winger’s expert testimony proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the State of Tennessee, in essence, discriminates against minor political parties through burdensome ballot access barriers.

by Harold Pease
The Tenth Amendment Center

There are only two reasons given in the US Constitution for what we now call the census: determining the number of representatives needed for a given area, and directing federal taxes.  Constitutionally there is but one legitimate question: how many people live in this residence?  With the House of Representatives based upon population the first reason is obvious.  But the second reason expired when the 16th  Amendment to the Constitution introduced the infamous income tax.

Today, three columns of invasive questions across 28 pages are asked in the companion to this year’s census- the American Community Survey.  Though the current census has been reduced to ‘just’ 10 questions, the old census ‘long form’ data is now being gathered via the ACS.  In their words:

"The ongoing American Community Survey has replaced the decennial census long form in 2010 and thereafter by collecting long form-type information throughout the decade rather than once every 10 years."

Washington DC’s violations of your privacy will now be continuous, rather than once per decade.  With respect to housing they want to know what kind of building you live in, when it was built, how many rooms, your mortgage, taxes, insurance and utility costs, and move-in date.  They also want to know how many automobiles are kept on the premises.

With respect to your personal life, the Feds want to know how many times you were married, the date of your last marriage, and if you have serious difficulty concentrating or bathing.  At one point they even asked for the number of stillbirths or abortions you have had. Even your nosiest neighbor does not know these things.