Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Paul Officially Has Been Qualified For Nomination!

page: 6
144
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 4 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   
That's great new, more power to him.
.. but if and when he loses he better bow out gracefully and not decide to run as an Independent, otherwise Obama will surely win re-election.

Maybe that's been the plan all along and Paul is being used as a pawn?




posted on May, 4 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   

National party rules trump state law and state party rules.


beta.redstate.com...


Morton Blackwell, the Virginia Republican National Committeeman, has served as a member of the Republican National Committee’s Standing Committee on Rules since 1988.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by jlm912
 


First this is not in the rules anywhere. Second it doesn't matter. Many delegates are bound by state law. No matter what the RNC may say they do not supersede state law.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alxandro
That's great new, more power to him.
.. but if and when he loses he better bow out gracefully and not decide to run as an Independent, otherwise Obama will surely win re-election.

Maybe that's been the plan all along and Paul is being used as a pawn?


That is definately a possibillity. If you look up the "Blue Republicans" they have their own website which organized Dems to back Ron Paul to throw a wrench in the GOP machinery.

There is a big factor you must consider though, Ron Paul has a son who is a legitimate contender in the GOP and has a very bright possible future in the Party. I don't think Ron Paul wants to throw him under the bus and he always said he takes all support from anywhere so those Blue repubs he would have taken no problem to further his cause. His cause may be to start a movement that his son can build on. Paul may be content with a prime speaking spot ant the convention and a nominal position in the Romney Administration.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


The only state laws that stand in Tampa are Florida state laws. Party rules are party rules.

From what I understand, SCOTUS has a previous ruling(s?) that National party rules supersede that of states. I'm working on finding the case or cases to back up my claim. I'll get back to you
edit on 4-5-2012 by jlm912 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by jlm912
 


I have yet to find case law verification, but I only have about 300 more cases to go through.


But I do concede that Republican National Party Rules call for binding of delegates in accordance to state laws, given they are non-conflicting with the RNPR elsewhere. Nonetheless, I don't see why they would've had to specify were it not by default that national party rules trump state law.

So it's not word for word in the rules, but most definitely inferred.
edit on 4-5-2012 by jlm912 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Here is one particular case, though from a district court in 1988, but it's specifically stated,

The National Party Rules also take precedence over state party rules.


and also...


a state party cannot be required to follow [a state] election statute if the election statute violates national party rules


it specifically says "the Michigan election statute," but for all intents and purposes...

Thus concluded, under federal judicial authority, that (to paraphrase) national party rules trump state party rules and legal statutes.

mi.findacase.com...
edit on 4-5-2012 by jlm912 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


Need I continue, or do you contest a federal ruling?



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   
So I say to RP delegates: Vote Paul, and do not abstain. Exercise your first amendment rights. Abstains only give Romney a better chance, because you're counted "not present," and thus lower the required number of delegates that Romney needs to have "the majority"



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   
he better bow out gracefully?

seriously.. its an election this whole premise of lets elect the guy that can win not the guy that supports our values or concerns is utter bull#. i will not vote for romney i dont care if that means obama wins a 2nd term obviously if he does it means he had a better campaign. this voting to win just for the sake of the win is a travesty of the justice system and is the reason we have a broken 2 party system. they arnt dealing with issues anymore they are just voting to win reguardless of how we the people feel about that vote.

maybe its in you to compromise yourself and your values so that you can get some hollow victory. ill stand by my man paul and what he stands for even if i dont agree with it all. he represents the best of what we are looking for in a president without looking us in the eye and lying blatently. he tells us things we dont like or dont approve of but by god i can stand by the man as he sticks to his convictions.

romney will simply be another failed president thats helping his buddies, we just had 2 bad presidents in a row.. lets not make it 3.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by rougeskut
Yes, the same in Germany & The Netherlands. It is all Romney, Paul is rarely if at all mentioned. I was actually watching this election cycle and the different MSM sources in a number of western countries, and you see the bias is endemic throughout the entire western based MSM....


Same in the UK.

Ron Paul never ever gets mentioned, you wouldn't even know he existed.

Corporate media


Thank-you Internet
which is where everybody is these days


We don't need no stinkin MSM !!

Go Ron Paul


Cosmic..



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by jlm912
 


National party rules supersede party state rules, not state laws. The party has no legislative authority. If party rules could supersede state laws they could create a rule that murder is within the rules and the law could do nothing about it. Does that really sound likely to you?



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


Of course I don't think they'd take it that far. Don't get silly and extravagant. It was presented before the district court that national party rules trump state party rules, and that state election statutes are null and void if they contradict national party rules, to be more specific, and the courts agreed. Not all state laws, captain obvious.
edit on 4-5-2012 by jlm912 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   
And even a Supreme Court Justice warned to be weary when convening in national political parties internal dealings, because apparently they're somewhat protected under the First Amendment? It's there in the source I provided.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   
National Party Rules set the standard for state election statutes, therefore supersede them. What about that is hard to understand. The RNC is dictated by National Republican Party Rules. The only reason they recognize the state election laws is because they are in line with the national rules. Thus, if the laws are conflicting, or the state law clauses were to be struck from the national rules, state parties wouldn't have to abide by them in order to be included in the RNC. Do I even necessarily agree? Not really, but it still stands... at least until the cases such as that are overturned. As far as I'm aware, that has yet to happen.
edit on 4-5-2012 by jlm912 because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-5-2012 by jlm912 because: (no reason given)


ETA:

Although the federal cases relied upon by Defendant to protect the right of political parties to free association as against restrictive state law are interesting, there seems to be no question here but that state party rules are subordinate to national party rules, and Rule 32(a) of the latter . . . specifically gives state law precedence over state party rules.
edit on 4-5-2012 by jlm912 because: (no reason given)


ETA:

After holding that a national party's rules concerning qualifications of convention delegates prevailed over contrary state law, the Court in Cousins, 419 U.S. at 483 n.4, expressly left open the extent to which "principles of the political question doctrine counsel against judicial intervention."

edit on 4-5-2012 by jlm912 because: (no reason given)


Get it yet? Sad, but true...
edit on 4-5-2012 by jlm912 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   
And it was most recently upheld this year, in the hearing against florida's winner-take-all system. Because the law governing the system didn't contradict National Republican Party Rules, it was upheld.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Should a state party select delegates in a manner contrary to national party rules, the national party may bar such delegates from sitting at the national convention. Democratic Party of the United States, supra; Cousins, supra. In short, the National Republican Party, not the state statute, is responsible for the alleged infringement of plaintiffs' constitutional rights.


If the Republican Party keeps delegates from voting according to their own free will, they can, and I hope will, receive a lawsuit. Constitution > National Party > State Party Rules and Laws.

Therefore, I rehash...


Originally posted by jlm912
Back in 2008....


Jennifer Sheehan, Legal Counsel for the RNC, plainly stated in a letter to Nancy Lord, Utah National Committeewoman, several weeks before the convention, “[The] RNC does not recognize a state’s binding of national delegates, but considers each delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose.” And, “The national convention allows delegates to vote for the individual of their choice, regardless of whether the person’s name is officially placed into nomination or not.”


utahcountygop.com...


Anti-paul idiots lose. Delegates aren't bound.
edit on 4-5-2012 by jlm912 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   
HOLY CRAP!


That's like the best political news to ever be aired on mainstream media for the past 50 years! Almost sounds too good to be true.

However y'all know what their plan B is next.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


I understand what you are saying but you are only quoting an interpretation, yours or the interpretation of someone else. Here is the interpretation of Jenniefer Sheehan, Legal Counsel for the RNC, 2008.


Jennifer Sheehan, Legal Counsel for the RNC, plainly stated in a letter to Nancy Lord, Utah National Committeewoman, several weeks before the convention, “[The] RNC does not recognize a state’s binding of national delegates, but considers each delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose.”


utahcountygop.com...

So who are we to believe? Who is your source and why do they supersede the Legel Counsel for the RNC? I am not saying you are wrong or trying to argue with you but I would find Jennifer Sheehan to be an expert on these rules and she would seem to have a different opinion than you are stating.

ETA: Sorry, just realized this has been brought to your attention already. I hope you take the time to realize its validity in the name of correct information. Have a good one.

edit on 4-5-2012 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by jlm912
 


First this is not in the rules anywhere. Second it doesn't matter. Many delegates are bound by state law. No matter what the RNC may say they do not supersede state law.



Since when are GOP rules State law? I could be wrong but I can't find any state laws on this after looking, just GOP rules. I think a lot of people are blurring the lines. If you can show me these laws I would like to look them over as I don't see them anywhere, thanks.

ETA: I have been able to find a few now after more research, In California, Mississippi, and Massachusetts. I wonder If these other states have any jurisdiction in Florida though? Also it would seem the highest penalty for breaking the law is a $100 dollar fine. I don't think any of these state laws will apply as even if they do supersede RNC rules, and these states have jurisdiction in Florida, the laws simply have no teeth.

edit on 4-5-2012 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
144
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join