RNC Rules Member: Changes To Binding Delegates ‘Unlikely’

“I have heard nothing about changes with respect to the binding of delegates except from Curly. And I think it’s highly unlikely that anything relating to the binding of delegations or binding delegates is going to be altered,” Blackwell told The Daily Caller Tuesday.

He added, “In fact, I believe that while it was possible in January to dispassionately discuss changes of the rules respecting the procedures at the convention in terms of what is most fair and what is most helpful to the Republican Party, that time has passed.”
RNC Rules Member: Changes To Binding Delegates ‘Unlikely’

Talk about "US Political Madness", according to my research, it's against federal law to have bound delegates:

11 CFR 100.2(e): ( www.gpo.gov... ) Defining a national convention as a "Federal Election" for the purpose of electing a candidate for federal office. Which states:

“(e) Caucus or Convention. A caucus or convention of a political party is an election if the caucus or convention has the authority to select a nominee for federal office on behalf of that party.”

&

42 USC 1971 - Sec. 1971. Voting rights: ( us-code.vlex.com... ) Which states:

"No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President"

The following is a terrific thread on the topic:

Federal Law Proves All Delegates Are UNBOUND! All Delegates Must See This!

The conclusion from the original post in that thread:

What does this all mean?

Based on federal law (check the Cornell link for the full article) Since the RNC is nominating a candidate to a federal position... federal law presides over the GOP rules/laws therefore nullifying the rule that delegates are bound to the winner of the primary states.

In other words DELEGATES who are seated in Tampa can vote for whoever they want on the first round. They cannot be forced or coerced in any-way-shape or form.

I have some questions:

Why do states make laws that are illegal according to the federal laws quoted above?

How can the RNC make rule(s) for their convention that are illegal according to the federal laws quoted above?

Is it just me or do the federal laws quoted above make perfect sense?

No one should be forced in any way to vote against their own volition. Isn't that essentially the equivalent of signing a contract under duress (which always makes the contract void)?

originally posted by: Profusion
Why do states make laws that are illegal according to the federal laws quoted above?

How can the RNC make rule(s) for their convention that are illegal according to the federal laws quoted above?

That law refers to the general election. Political parties are private entities and can have any rules for their nomination process that they choose.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Profusion
Why do states make laws that are illegal according to the federal laws quoted above?

How can the RNC make rule(s) for their convention that are illegal according to the federal laws quoted above?

That law refers to the general election.

Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote, "the primary must be regarded as an integral part of the general election." Please don't miss my examination of the second sentence you wrote below.

Now, I suppose- doubtless, in fact!- that a reasonable legal argument might well be made that a Major Party National Convention itself flows from such Primary elections for the office of President as are certainly covered by 42 USC 1971(b), an argument that- if only theoretically (for reasons I will discuss shortly)- could bring a National Convention under the provisions of 42 USC 1971(b). Indeed, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall's dissent in the case of O'Brien v. Brown [409 U.S. 1 (1972)]- which I examined extensively in a piece of mine posted on this website more than four years ago now- itself hints at a justification for just such an argument (so long as we always keep in mind that this was in a dissent from the Court's per Curiam opinion denying Certiorari [thereby refusing to hear the case] in an action brought before the court based upon National Convention procedure):

To quote Justice Marshall yet again: The primary process was, by State law, the first step in a process designed to select a [Major Party's] candidate for President; the State will include [presidential] electors pledged to that candidate on the ballot in the general election; the State is intertwined in the process at every step, not only authorizing the primary but conducting it, and adopting its result for use in the general election. In these circumstances, the primary must be regarded as an integral part of the general election.

....

Logically speaking: if the Primary (or, or so it could also be argued, a State or other sub-State Convention) that bound/pledged a Party's National Convention delegates to presidential contenders is (as Marshall claimed) an inherent element in (ultimately) the placing of the name of that very Party's presidential and vice-presidential nominees on the State's General Election ballot, then wouldn't the National Convention which a.) actually- officially, formally- so nominates a Party's candidates for President and Vice President and b.) does so through the votes cast by those very delegates bound/pledged by said Primary (or State or other Convention) also be an inherent part of that same process?

After all, you can't get from A (a Presidential Primary or other National Convention delegate-binding "event") to C (the name of the Party's presidential nominee appearing on the ballot come November) without B (the National Convention said delegates attend and which is also charged with so nominating the Party's candidate for President): and, if so, then the Party's National Convention (and all its officers and committees, rules and procedures [without which the Convention cannot even function]) would then come under color of a Federal statute such as 42 USC 1971(b) [for there would then be no way to separate the actions taken at a National Convention from either the General or Primary election(s) specifically mentioned in- and, therefore, intended to be covered by- that very statute!
Mitt Romney's formal delegate commitments put him over the "magic number"--but now what?

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Profusion
Why do states make laws that are illegal according to the federal laws quoted above?

How can the RNC make rule(s) for their convention that are illegal according to the federal laws quoted above?

Political parties are private entities and can have any rules for their nomination process that they choose.

I believe that the following analysis is correct and that it disproves your claim above. If you're going to continue in this discussion, please add references to support your claims or else I will not reply to you in this thread again.

The federal laws are as follows:

11 CFR 100.2(e): ( www.gpo.gov... ) Defining a national convention as a "Federal Election" for the purpose of electing a candidate for federal office. Which states:

“(e) Caucus or Convention. A caucus or convention of a political party is an election if the caucus or convention has the authority to select a nominee for federal office on behalf of that party.”

&

42 USC 1971 - Sec. 1971. Voting rights: ( us-code.vlex.com... ) Which states:

"No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President"

The Republican party is a private party. A legal voter/delegate is also considered a private party. These private parties are separately governed by numerous federal and state laws (depending on their location).

The Republican National Convention; however, is a federal election made up of multiple private parties which serve to nominate a candidate for the office of the Presidency (which is a federal office position).

The Republican National Convention itself is a federal election bound by federal laws.

These two federal laws alone SHOULD prove that no state law or private party rule can force an individual to vote against their own free will for any federal election. Period!
Federal Laws Proving Binding of Delegates Is Illegal!

Shouldn't they be bound though?
I mean isn't that kinda like going to a cafe, ordering steak and eggs and the waitress brings you oatmeal? They signed up for the gig. Its their job. They got to cast their voluntary vote at the ballot box, if they don't like the results maybe they shouldn't have been a delegate.

I surely do not understand how the process works

originally posted by: Profusion
Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote, "the primary must be regarded as an integral part of the general election." Please don't miss my examination of the second sentence you wrote below.

And your link states that he wrote it as a dissenting opinion. In other words, that wasn't the finding of the court.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Profusion
Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote, "the primary must be regarded as an integral part of the general election." Please don't miss my examination of the second sentence you wrote below.

And your link states that he wrote it as a dissenting opinion. In other words, that wasn't the finding of the court.

That's correct. However, Thurgood Marshall made a deductive logical argument in the quote below that stands on its own. If the premises are true then the conclusion must be true. It doesn't matter if it's written in a dissenting argument in the Supreme Court or if it's written on this forum or if it's written in sand. I believe that the argument below is a deductively valid argument.

The primary process was, by State law, the first step in a process designed to select a [Major Party's] candidate for President; the State will include [presidential] electors pledged to that candidate on the ballot in the general election; the State is intertwined in the process at every step, not only authorizing the primary but conducting it, and adopting its result for use in the general election. In these circumstances, the primary must be regarded as an integral part of the general election.