Colbert Drops Out of Presidential Race
Colbert, who was rejected from the Democrat ballot last week, has announced that he will no longer be pursuing election as the President.
Let’s not mash words here. No body expected him to seriously pursue this and he isn’t. We knew from the beginning that he was in it to lose. And maybe that’s what did him in. It was clearly stated that the main reason that he wasn’t allowed on the ballot was because of his earlier statement that he only planned on running in South Carolina. So, no big loss to the race.
What I think is an issue, and Colbert hinted at it in his concession speech on his show, is whether he has a constitutional right to be on the ballot as a democrat or not. It’s plain that he has a right to be on the ballot. No doubt about that. But does he have a right to run as a democrat. I really dislike the partisan system we have, so I would argue that he has the right to run as whatever he likes. If he wants to run as under the Hollywood News Anchors party, he should be able to do so.
Anyone with a little more constitutional law knowledge that can tell us what the real low down is on this issue?
November 9th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
[...] about the constitutional implications of what the South Carolina Democratic Party had done. Over at Donkephant, a serious and interesting question is posed: does Colbert – or any American for that matter – have [...]
November 9th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Now, I am no constitutional law expert, but I’ve taken a few classes in it and I find it fascinating, so here are my two cents: No, he does not. It is fairly clear that within the limits of a state’s election laws, a person will have a right to appear on the ballot as an independent without the official approval of any party. However, to appear on a ballot as a member of a party does – at least practically – require that party’s approval. The question is whether that is constitutional. The short answer is that it is. Read more:
http://www.jeredtede.com/?p=174
-Jered