Federal Law Does NOT Unbind Delegates

In recent days people have been throwing around the claim that federal laws prohibit the binding of delegates at the Republican National Convention. This just isn't true. Before I get to that though I thought it might be nice for a little refresher on US law.

The core of US federal laws are contained in the Code of Laws of the United States of America (USC). These are the general and permanent laws that are passed by Congress. It is composed of 51 Titles that organize laws into similar categories.

There is also the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). This contains what is known as administrative laws. In order for a federal regulation to go into effect it must have an enabling statute. This is a law in the USC that it tied to. The reason this is done is because federal regulations are not created by Congress. Instead they are created by executive agencies to further define laws passed by Congress. For example, if Congress passed a law that prohibited excessive amounts of mercury in any body of water in the US, the EPA would then create a regulation defining the term "excessive amounts of mercury" in relation to this law. The regulation only applies to its enabling statute.

Now since that is covered let us turn our attention to claims regarding unbinding of delegates. The main crux of this argument stems from 42 USC 1971. The relevant part of this law says:

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, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives, Delegates or Commissioners from the Territories or possessions, at any general, special, or primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any such candidate.

The argument that has been raised against nowhere does this law refer to national conventions. In response to this people have been citing 11 CFR 100.2. The relevant part of this regulation follows:

(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.

Now if we look at these two together it would seem that a convention is an election and as a result falls under 42 USC 1971. But what no one has seemed to acknowledge is that 11 CFR 100.2's enabling statute is not 42 USC 1971. It is 2 USC 431. This law is more commonly known as the Federal Election Campaign Act. This law pertains to campaign contributions. It has nothing to actually do with the voting process.

Interestingly though those claiming that federal law does unbind delegates didn't even need to go to the CFR to find a convention defined as an election. If we actually look at 2 USC 431 we find:

(1) The term “election” means—
(A) a general, special, primary, or runoff election;
(B) a convention or caucus of a political party which has authority to nominate a candidate;

Of course this is preceded by "When used in this Act:"

So there you have it. There is nothing in 42 USC 1971 that says it pertains to conventions. Those laws that do define a convention as an election have no bearing on 42 USC 1971. As it stands right now no one has shown that federal law unbinds delegates.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


Very informative...but can you link the law that "binds" delegates?

reply to post by type0civ


That's done on a state-by-state basis. If a state doesn't have a specific law binding delegates the state party will have the delegate sign an affidavit or swear a legally binding oath that they will vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged. As an example of a state law that binds delegates here is one from Massachusetts.

Section 70I. If there is a roll call vote for president at the national convention of a political party, all delegates and alternate delegates whose selection is subject by party rule to the approval of a presidential candidate shall vote on the first such roll call for that presidential candidate unless released by such candidate.

Source

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by type0civ

 

That's done on a state-by-state basis. If a state doesn't have a specific law binding delegates the state party will have the delegate sign an affidavit or swear a legally binding oath that they will vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged. As an example of a state law that binds delegates here is one from Massachusetts.

Section 70I. If there is a roll call vote for president at the national convention of a political party, all delegates and alternate delegates whose selection is subject by party rule to the approval of a presidential candidate shall vote on the first such roll call for that presidential candidate unless released by such candidate.

Source

so, a roll call vote? Not a beauty pageant vote, is that correct?
So the delegates being voted in by roll call at the state conventions are free to vote as they see fit, is that correct?
I think you are getting your panties all twisted up trying to pidgeon hole an election for representatives of a Constitutional republic into a democratic mob rule process that just makes no sense when you go down that road.
Our Forfathers look pretty wise now as we can see what a tax consuming majority can do if they are left to a democratic process. It's a representative form of government not a beauty pageant. I think we can all agree that the average person in this country has no clue for who or what they cast their vote for. This isn't american idol. The process is there for active participants to have an effect not for ignorant mobs to vote entitlements to themselves. I can understand why you appeal to the masses because most are easily fooled b y soundbites and peer pressure but politics isn't meant for the ignorant, it really isn't. Someday you might get your wish and the people will vote from their tv's and not have to even leave their houses, not even their couches. But today, let's put hope in the passionate and the active participants that want to change the direction this country is heading, which is down the toilet.

HERES THE THING AND THIS SHOULD BE THE END OF IT.............NO RON PAUL SUPPORTER WILL VOTE FOR ROMNEY,,,,,WE WOULD RATHER DIE,,,SO THAT MEANS WE DONT GIVE A SH*T ABOUT JAIL OR LEGAL B.S. THAT WILL NEVER EVEN GO THAT FAR....ITS ONLY A SCARE TACTIC,,,AND IF PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED SO MUCH ABOUT RULES!!! THEN REPORT ALL THE DISGUSTING CHEATING BY THE ROMNEY PEOPLE.. I think its hilarious that people are writing these anti paul delegate threads........what a waste of time...

reply to post by avatard


The motto of ATS is deny ignorance. I am simply denying ignorance by pointing out the flaws in the logic of Paul's supporters. The reality is that federal law does not unbind delegates. If you don't want to accept reality then maybe ATS is not the site for you.

reply to post by manna2


A roll call vote is generally the first round of voting at the national convention. So what that law is saying is that if you are bound to a candidate you are legally bound to vote for them in at least the first round of voting at the national convention.

Thanks for the post. All of this is pretty crazy and I'm sure all sides have lawyers all over this already.

But from what I understand, Once delegates hit the floor of the convention, they must adhere to the RNC rules of the convention which trumps all state convention laws.

Now we've already heard about Rule 38...but what about Rule 37-(b)?...

Rule 37, Section (b) explicitly recognizes that the vote belongs to the delegate and not the state or even the head of the state's delegation.
“In the balloting, the vote of each state shall be announced by the chairman of such state’s delegation, or his or her designee; and in case the vote of any state shall be divided, the chairman shall announce the number of votes for each candidate, or for or against any proposition; but if exception is taken by any delegate from that state to the correctness of such announcement by the chairman of that delegation, the chairman of the convention shall direct the roll of members of such delegation to be called, and the result shall be recorded in accordance with the vote of the several delegates in such delegation.”

If Paul takes advantage of these rules, which it does appear to be the case and wins, what next?

So let's say it happens. Ron Paul delegates and delegates for other candidates who support Ron Paul take advantage of Rule 37 (b) and Rule 38 to vote for Paul during the first round of voting, and Paul actually manages to win a majority of the votes. He's the party's nominee, right? Well, what happens if Romney challenges the results in court, claiming that State law trumps RNC rules? Turns out there's already a SCOTUS precedent on that issue...

Well, what happens next? Of course Romney will hire a "Dream-Team" of lawyers and fight this.

As IVN’s Kymberly Bays recently reported, this exact question has already been resolved at the US Supreme Court level: the national party’s rules take precedence over state laws because as a private organization and free association of individuals, a political party has the constitutional right to set its own rules and state laws interfering with that private process violate a political party’s First Amendment rights.

Source

The article also gives you a more specific account of the courts ruling. I'm no expert and far from a lawyer, but it does appear that RP and his team have done their homework and it also looks like it'll be a very interesting RNC!

Remember...Deny Ignorance!

reply to post by Xcalibur254

Member of the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives, DELEGATES or Commissioners from the Territories or possessions, at any general, special, or primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any such candidate.

I do not know of any elections that have delegates except for conventions or caucuses

Originally posted by Xcalibur254


Interestingly though those claiming that federal law does unbind delegates didn't even need to go to the CFR to find a convention defined as an election. If we actually look at 2 USC 431 we find:

(1) The term “election” means—
(A) a general, special, primary, or runoff election;
(B) a convention or caucus of a political party which has authority to nominate a candidate;

Except the national convention is a primary election, as it falls under (1) and (2) of the definition of a primary election:

(c) Primary election. A primary election is an election which meets one of the following conditions:
(1) An election which is held prior to a general election, as a direct result of which candidates are nominated, in accordance with applicable State law, for election to Federal office in a subsequent election is a primary election.
(2) An election which is held for the expression of a preference for the nomination of persons for election to the office of President of the United States is a primary election.
(3) An election which is held to elect delegates to a national nominating convention is a primary election.

www.gpo.gov...

reply to post by hawkiye


Notice that what it actually says is Delegates from the Territories. Delegate is official term for any person elected to the House of Representatives that acts in the interest of a US territory. Territories that have a delegate are Washington DC, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Minor Outlying Islands. While Puerto Rico is a territory it has a resident commissioner instead of a delegate.

reply to post by bl4ke360


What you're citing is still 11 CFR 100.2. As I pointed out in my OP this is a regulation that only applies to 2 USC 431 which deals with campaign contributions. It has no impact on voting laws.

reply to post by Xcalibur254

The core of US federal laws are contained in the Code of Laws of the United States of America (USC). These are the general and permanent laws that are passed by Congress. It is composed of 51 Titles that organize laws into similar categories.

The core of U.S. federal laws are contained in the Constitution for the United States of America which stands as the Supreme Law of the Land and all subsequent legislation is subject to that law.

There is also the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). This contains what is known as administrative laws. In order for a federal regulation to go into effect it must have an enabling statute.

That is because the CFR is not "law" but are codes established in pursuance of the law, and what they pursue are the enabling statutes you refer to. When a statute reads as unclear or ambiguous, we then turn to the CFR for a better explanation of that statute, but is always important to remember that when it comes to subject and liability that the CFR assumes one reading it is subject to the statutes it pursues and therefore the reader must be liable.

The reason this is done is because federal regulations are not created by Congress. Instead they are created by executive agencies to further define laws passed by Congress.

Only Congress can define the statutes they legislate, the other two branches can only interpret. However the judicial branch does have the power of judicial review and can strike down a statute or code that does not conform with the Constitution, but judges do not do so until someone has brought the issue before the court.

For example, if Congress passed a law that prohibited excessive amounts of mercury in any body of water in the US, the EPA would then create a regulation defining the term "excessive amounts of mercury" in relation to this law. The regulation only applies to its enabling statute.

If Congress has failed to define what "excessive amounts" means the people are not bound to any definition the CFR invents in light of Congress' failure.

In all of your analysis, at no point do you point out that there is no Constitutional mandate for political parties and no federal law legislating political party loyalty. There is no law binding delegates, including constitutional state laws that can do so. Political parties can try to contractually bind delegates, but such a contract could very well be challenged in court.

The question of bound delegates is not nearly as cut and dry as you, or the other threads stating differently have presented it, but to be sure, no federal or state act of legislation can lawfully bind any person, delegate or otherwise to voting in any other way than by the dictates of their own conscience.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by avatard

 

The motto of ATS is deny ignorance. I am simply denying ignorance by pointing out the flaws in the logic of Paul's supporters. The reality is that federal law does not unbind delegates. If you don't want to accept reality then maybe ATS is not the site for you.

2 days ago you claimed ignorance on the same topic in the other thread. No kudos for you just because you did a google and cherry picked a few paragraphs. And now you claim some fairy tale high road declaring others are ignorant of this process? What changed in the last 2 days?

Deny ignorance...till tommorow?

reply to post by manna2


I'm not really sure what I'm referring to. However, are you saying that there's a problem with me doing research over the past few days? Isn't that how one denies ignorance? By going out and learning about things you didn't know before? I guess I don't really see what problem you have with me doing research and then presenting it.

I pointed out you're cherry picking just throwing spit balls and then you claim others are ignorant when you had an ignorant opinion just a few days ago. Jean Paul points out what you are doing quite clearly.

Originally posted by manna2
I pointed out you're cherry picking just throwing spit balls and then you claim others are ignorant when you had an ignorant opinion just a few days ago. Jean Paul points out what you are doing quite clearly.

Ron Paul apparently cherry picked the same info.

What's more, we will send several hundred additional supporters to Tampa who, while bound to Romney, believe in our ideas of liberty, constitutional government, and a common-sense foreign policy.

Ron Paul thinks the delegates are bound. Why don't you?

And while this total is not enough to win the nomination, it puts us in a tremendous position to grow our movement and shape the future of the GOP!

Ron Paul knows Romney won and has enough delgates legally BOUND to him, why don't you?
www.politico.com...

Want to debunk Ron Paul? If he can't get that right how can we expect the man to run the country?