http://www.boston.com/dailynews/277/region/State_Libertarian_party_tries_:.shtml
State Libertarian party tries to
halt debate
By Associated Press, 10/3/2000 11:02
BOSTON (AP) Just hours before the first presidential debate
was set to begin, Massachusetts Libertarians asked a judge to
force debate organizers to include their party's candidate,
Harry Browne.
The Libertarians claim in a lawsuit filed Tuesday morning that
the state Legislature spent $900,000 to help the University of
Massachusetts defray the costs of hosting the debate. Since
the Libertarian Party is officially recognized in the state,
Browne should be allowed to participate, they say.
''It is an outrage that taxpayer money is used to fund biased,
exclusionary debates,'' said state party chairman Elias Israel.
''The Libertarian Party will not go to the back of the bus in
Massachusetts.''
The Libertarians are asking the court to allow Browne to
participate, to close the debate, or force the return of the public
money.
Attorney Thomas Robertson, who is representing the
Libertarians, said that it would be ''unreasonable'' to ask for a
debate shutdown, but said he hoped Browne could be ordered
to participate or be allowed, at least, to make a statement.
The bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates, which
organized the debate, required candidates to win at least 15
percent of a national poll to participate in the debate. Green
Party candidate Ralph Nader and Reform party candidate Pat
Buchanan also fell far short.
A hearing was scheduled for 2 p.m. on the motion filed in
Suffolk Superior Court in Boston.
The state, Gov. Paul Cellucci and University of Massachusetts
President William Bulger are named as defendants. A
spokesman for Cellucci didn't immediately have a comment. A
message left for Bulger's spokesmen wasn't immediately
returned. The attorney general's office, which serves as the
state's lawyer, didn't immediately comment.
------------------
~USP
"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998
