2014 Florida LP Gubernatorial Candidate Adrian Wyllie Overwhelmingly Wins Libertarian Party of Hillsborough County Straw Poll

From Wyllie for Governor Facebook page: 

Libertarian Party of Hillsborough County Gubernatorial Straw Poll results (3/27/13):

Adrian Wyllie^ 87%

Roger Stone* 13%

John Wayne Smith^ 0%

Declared candidate^ Potential candidate*

Adrian Wyllie is the Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Florida (LPF). He announced his candidacy for governor on January 10, 2013. His website is http://wyllieforgovernor.com/. John Wayne Smith is active in the LPF of Pinellas County. He was on the ballot in Florida in 2008 as the running mate of Boston Tea Party presidential candidate Charles Jay. The tickets received 797 votes or 0.01% in that state. Smith was also the former chairman of the Florida affiliate of the Boston Tea Party. He does not have a known website or campaign Facebook page. Roger Stone was a former “GOP hitman” who has a tattoo of Richard Nixon on his back. He is currently a member of the LP. He endorsed Gary Johnson in 2012 and served as a senior consultant. In January 2013 he stated on Facebook that he was considering running for the LP nod for Florida governor.

34 thoughts on “2014 Florida LP Gubernatorial Candidate Adrian Wyllie Overwhelmingly Wins Libertarian Party of Hillsborough County Straw Poll

  1. Joe Wendt

    As Treasurer for that LP affiliate, this is all I am going to say:

    First, as proctor of this straw poll, there were only 10 people voting in the straw poll excluding myself (otherwise JWS would have won a vote).

    Second, If Adrian Wyllie wins the LP gubernatorial nomination, I plan to fully support Rick Scott for his re-election and actively advocate for his re-election. Adrian is an arrognant & overhyped idiot who’s platform isn’t constitutional (state or Federal) in any sense of the word. He butts into local party affairs where he doesn’t belong, and he rules through a clique. Anyone But Adrian is fine by me, personally I support JWS but Mr Stone would be tolerable. Anyone But Adrian!!!

  2. Freddy Got Fingered

    If you find Rick Scott or Roger Stone to be tolerable that says a lot about you.

    As far as Wyllie’s unconstitutional views, please be more specific.

    The percentages in the poll are inconsistent with ten people voting. Are you sure it wasn’t 8? Or….Did 2 vote for NOTA?

  3. Joe Wendt

    Two ballots were blank, NOTA was not an option.

    Adrian advocates a State currency. Article 1 of the Constitution empowers only Congress can coin money (however they want to do is perfectly constitutional, no matter how messed up it is right now). Adrian’s position is unconstitutional.

    Adrian wants to implement voucher system for education. The FL Supreme Court ruled that vouchers are unconstitutional under the FL constitution when Jeb Bush was Governor. Adrian’s position is unconstitutional.

    Adrian wants to nullify federal laws. Courts have ruled in the passed that states do not have the power to nullify a federal law. Adrian’s position is unconstitutional, or at the very least extremely illegal.

    Adrian wants to prohibit the FL National Guard from being deployed in foreign wars. The sad reality is that the National Guard is a federal entity that can be called to duty with or without the Governor’s approval through federalization. Although not unconstitutional, it’s shows how big an idiot Adrian Wyllie is.

    I’m not a fan of Rick Scott, but if the choice is between a Democrat and an idiot, Rick Scott looks pretty good. But, I’m hopeful JWS wins the primary and kicks Adrian’s ass.

  4. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    Jeebus Christ Mr. Wendt, those are all great reasons to support Mr. Wyllie!! State currency, yes, vouchers, yes, nullify federal laws, HELL YES, prohibit deploying FL Guard, yes. Those all seem like libertarian positions to me, what’s the problem? I fully support states’ rights, looks like you’re for a burgeoning unconstitutional federal government, sir.

    I’ll admit I know next to nothing about JWS (it’s probably a good thing he was active in the BTP though) but come on, Rick Scott and “GOP hitman” Stone are better than Wyllie? Are you being serious? Scott wants to enforce Obamacare, for Christ’s sake. As for Stone, he’s a SOB, neocon infiltrator in the LP, Bill Still exposed him in the video I posted above. Some people may remember his viscous and untruthful attacks against IPR’s owner Warren Redlich. He’s probably the best (albeit not unbiased) person to talk to about this Stone character.

    I am 100% confident that Wyllie will win the primary. JWS doesn’t even have a campaign website or Facebook page, showing just how serious he is about his run.

  5. Joe Wendt

    None of those positions are Constitutional. All of those positions ignore both the Federal and Florida Constitutions. He maybe a libertarian, but he is ignoring both constitutions.

    John Wayne Smith is a real libertarian. He helped eliminate a government agency and has been a long time LP activist. He understands the law, he understands the Constitution, and he is a good man. I fully support him. However, he has indicted that he may withdraw if Mr. Stone runs. However, if JWS is on the ballot he will get my vote.

    Mr Stone spoke at the meeting we had the straw poll, albeit he left before we conducted it. He demonstrated a clear knowledge of FL law and practical stances that do not violate the State or Federal Constitution. He maybe a sleaze bag, but he’s at least realistic about the LP’s chances and he wants to focus on running a candidate for every office in 2014. I haven’t seen Adrian advocate or even come close to setting candidate recruitment as a goal of his candidacy. So, in a two man race between Adrian and Mr Stone, I can justify voting for Mr. Stone.

    As for Rick Scott, he’s not Adrian, therefore he would get my vote. I do not care what he has done or what bs he spouts, as long as Rick Scott is not a democrat or Adrian he gets my vote.

    Hopefully, Adrian will be crushed and JWS will be the nominee.

  6. Sam Kress

    You have some strange notions of what is “constitutional.”

    When/where did Smith say he might drop out if Stone runs?

  7. Joe Wendt

    @10

    If I have a strange notion of what is “constitutional,” then tell me this: Where in the Constitution does it give a state the right to coin money? Where does it give the state the right of a state to nullify federal law and give and example (like a court case) of when a state has done so successfully?

    I’m friends with JWS, we chit chat from time to time. He told me that IF Mr Stone is serious AND has the funds to mount a serious campaign AND can beat Adrian in a primary, he MAY drop out and support Mr Stone, but right now he’s planning to stay in. As long as he’s in, I’m backing JWS.

  8. Joe Wendt

    FYI, I also don’t think Mr. Stone will run. As far as I am concerned, it’s a race between Adrian and JWS, and I’m backing JWS.

  9. Adrian Wyllie

    @Joe Wendt

    I’m happy to answer your Constitutional questions. First, the authority for states to use gold and silver coin as money, and the requirement to do so, is located in Article 1, Section 10:

    “No State shall…make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts”

    Since the State of Florida currently uses Federal Reserve Notes to pay debts, not gold and silver coin, we are in technically in violation of the Constitution right now. So, coining gold and silver coin, or at least using coins issued by the U.S. Treasury, would actually put us back in compliance.

    Where the matter becomes more vague is whether a state can create an alternative currency, backed by gold and silver. That one is a bit more of a Constitutional gray area, and would likely be subject to a federal challenge. Two states have already passed legal tender laws similar to my plan and have not yet been challenged.

    Second, the authorization for nullification is located in the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

    Therefore, any power not expressly granted to Congress by Article 1, or to the President by Article 2, are powers retained by the States and by the People.

    Further, the Ninth Amendment says, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This is further evidence of our Founders’ intent that the federal government is limited in its power to that which is enumerated, and the people are unlimited in their rights, with the exception of those which they have authorized to the government.

    Nullification is not some radical new idea. It was part of the original design of our Republic, and is clearly expressed by our governing documents.

    In fact, here are a couple of interpretations from the framers of the Constitution.

    “The states who are parties thereto [the Constitution], have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and appertaining liberties to them.” -James Madison, the Virgina Resolution, 1798

    “To this compact [the Constitution] each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.” – Thomas Jefferson, The Kentucky Resolution, 1798

    I hope this clarifies the Constitutionality of both state currency in gold and silver, as well as the original and intrinsic foundation of nullification.

  10. paulie

    Gotta go with Wyllie on constitutional currency, nullification and the national guard. I’ll have to ask Smith about Stone. My impression was that he was not a fan.

  11. Mark Axinn

    Since when is “constitutional” a standard for the Libertarian Party to consider.

    I could not care less if a particular position is constitutional; the only test should be whether it advances liberty or further empowers the state.

    The US Constitution empowers 535 power-hungy thugs in Congress to declare foreign wars.

    It permits the Government to seize 40-50% of your income.

    That’s a terrible standard for any freedom-loving person to utilize.

  12. Mark Axinn

    NF @14-

    Warren was the best candidate for Governor of New York in the 40-year history of the LPNY.

    His move to Boca Raton was Florida’s gain and New York ‘s loss.

  13. Joe Wendt

    Adrian, that section also prohibits a state from coining money. Article 1 section 8 clearly states the Congress has the power to do the following:

    To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

    So, Florida can’t make it’s own money. You’re wrong.

    There have been cases in the Supreme Court that reject nullification. Look up the following court cases:

    United States v. Peters, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 115 (1809)
    Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304 (1816)
    Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 (1821)
    Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859)
    Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958)

    The Supreme Court has rejected nullification time and time again. You are wrong again.

  14. David Hester

    As Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Hillsborough County (LPHC), I can say without reservation that Joseph Wendt did not speak for the LPHC with his comments above. The Executive Committee was not aware of the views stated and does not approve the posting of the comments with the impression of LPHC sanction.

  15. Sam Kress

    You don’t sound like much of a libertarian. Angry, yes.

    section 8 clearly states the Congress has the power to do the following:

    To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

    And says nothing about what states may or may not do.

    Duh!

    There have been cases in the Supreme Court that reject nullification.

    You are assuming the federal government is the master and the rightful arbiter of its own powers.

    Not so.

    The state created the union and retained certain rights, including nullification, no matter what any branch of the federal government proclaims.

  16. Danielle Alexandre

    Joseph Wendt the Federal Government is not the supreme law and that is stated very clearly in the Constitution. The states themselves can even propose Amendments to the Constitution WITHOUT either house of congress. This would stand to prove that the “Several States” at any time can change an amend the Constitution WITHOUT the Supreme Court, Legislature or Executive. This would make the states supreme

    Article V of the Constitution of the United States:

    The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

    The argument against nullification is the wrongly used Supremacy Clause.

    Article VI, Clause 2 of the United State Constitution:
    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

    This states that all laws that are made pursuant to the Constitution would be the supreme law and only under judicial review. This would mean any unconstitutional law would NOT be the supreme law of the land and shall NOT be bound by the judiciary of the states. This would also reaffirm the 9th and 10th Amendments (as they are pursuant to the Constitution) are the supreme law of the land and the judiciary is under compulsion to uphold them.

    Ninth Amendment of the United States Constitution:
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Tenth Amendment of the Constitution:
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    These Amendments CLEARLY state that all powers not relegated to the Federal Government EXPLICITLY within the Constitution are left to the states and the people respectively.

    The word NULLIFICATION does not need to specifically appear in the document as the powers of the states was clearly made throughout.

  17. paulie

    I could not care less if a particular position is constitutional; the only test should be whether it advances liberty or further empowers the state.

    Generally speaking, determining whether something is constitutional would at this stage tend to push things towards more liberty. If we ignore the constitution, we have even less protection from people who want to use government for all sorts of things we don’t support.


    The US Constitution empowers 535 power-hungy thugs in Congress to declare foreign wars.

    Better than an even smaller number of power hungry thugs in the executive branch, which is currently the practical alternative.


    It permits the Government to seize 40-50% of your income.

    I would disagree that it actually does, although the way it has been misinterpreted has led to that.


    That’s a terrible standard for any freedom-loving person to utilize.

    It’s a stepping stone. I agree it’s not the ultimate goal, but I don’t think we would be better off if we cast it aside.

  18. George Phillies

    Nullify Federal laws. Let’s see. A nullifier might say that African-Americans can’t vote, married couples are not entitled to buy contraceptives, and people of different races are not allowed to marry or attend the same school. I am old enough to remember all four of those as laws in different states. Fortunately, we have a fourteenth amendment that replaces in part the tenth and makes the Bill of Rights enforceable on the states, so we had great Libertarian triumphs of each of those state laws being put down like the mad dogs that they were.

    Nullification is an antilibertarian monstrosity, largely pushed these days by right wing theocrats.

  19. George Phillies

    Danielle, the higher-numbered fourteenth amendment suppresses the tenth. Also, one of the powers reserved to the Federal Government is that the Constitution is the Supreme law of the land…before which all other laws must yield.

  20. Andy

    George Phillies June 10, 2014 at 10:42 pm said: “Nullification is an antilibertarian monstrosity, largely pushed these days by right wing theocrats.”

    This is like saying that guns are bad because some people may use them to hold up liquor stores.

    Nullifying things that are anti-liberty is good. Nullifying things that are pro-liberty is bad.

    Libertarians want to use nullification to nullify things that are anti-liberty.

  21. OrlandoChris

    Folks, it all comes down to recognition. We need to spread the word about Adrian Wyllie in order for him to win. I am very much behind the “super brochure” plan, so much so, that I personally have completely covered my entire precinct where I live. I think it’s the most affective and economical way to bring the super voters, attention to Adrian Wyllie. Most don’t even know there is another choice other than scott/christ. It only cost me $47.50 to cover my precinct. I urge others to do the same. If you want him elected, you must do something to make it happen. Just your one vote will not do it. Take advantage of this great opportunity we have to get a Libertarian in the Governor’s office. We (Floridians) desperately need this. I beg you to do what you can.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *