*must watch!!* RNC Legal Counsel STATED national delegates may vote their conscience.

reply to post by antar

I still think Ron Paul will win the nomination and go on to fight/debate obama. That is one of main reasons 'they' do not want Dr Paul, 'they' know he can actually win the debates and get millions to vote for him as President.

So you are saying the GOP knows Ron Paul can beat Obama...and they don't want that???



Can you at least admit that Ron Paul has lost every States popular vote up to this point???

Originally posted by antar
reply to post by eLPresidente

 

The thing is that many of the delegates to the RNC were chosen because they will go along with whatever they are told and have no conscience of their own to speak of. They still think that romney has it in the bag by any means possible.

I still think Ron Paul will win the nomination and go on to fight/debate obama. That is one of main reasons 'they' do not want Dr Paul, 'they' know he can actually win the debates and get millions to vote for him as President.

The future has always been preplanned the only difference now is that individuals are waking up and have been come uncontrollable...

It was fine and normal to have that fantasy 6 months ago if you liked Ron Paul but after the voting conclusively proved he is not the favorite candidate, it is a purely detached from reallity obsessive fantasy at this point.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by antar

 

I still think Ron Paul will win the nomination and go on to fight/debate obama. That is one of main reasons 'they' do not want Dr Paul, 'they' know he can actually win the debates and get millions to vote for him as President.

So you are saying the GOP knows Ron Paul can beat Obama...and they don't want that???



Can you at least admit that Ron Paul has lost every States popular vote up to this point???

They will never admit that, they will point to Virgin Islands and pretend it is a State, hahahaha.

I saw Ben Swann's first report and was still a little skeptical. This report brings a whole new light on the subject. In the RNC's own words,

"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".

Wow, this looks pretty cut & dry coming from the RNC legal counsel. We need to thank that Mitt Romney supporter from 2008 for helping us understand the rules and how to win the nomination in 2012!

As always, great reporting from a real journalist, Ben Swann.

And as always, the trolls will say what they want and put their spin on it.
The reality is, would the RP campaign be working so hard the last four years for JUST a voice at the convention?

Prez, why did I know I'd wake up to see u post this?

As always, Great job Patriot!

Originally posted by maddog99
I saw Ben Swann's first report and was still a little skeptical. This report brings a whole new light on the subject. In the RNC's own words,

"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".

Wow, this looks pretty cut & dry coming from the RNC legal counsel. We need to thank that Mitt Romney supporter from 2008 for helping us understand the rules and how to win the nomination in 2012!

As always, great reporting from a real journalist, Ben Swann.

And as always, the trolls will say what they want and put their spin on it.
The reality is, would the RP campaign be working so hard the last four years for JUST a voice at the convention?

Prez, why did I know I'd wake up to see u post this?

As always, Great job Patriot!

Because Ron Paul has made a career out of running for President and he has a son he wants to follow in his footsteps. The money wouldn't continue to flow in if he stood still he had to keep the dog and pony show fresh.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I've already explained this on a previous thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Federal courts have agreed that national party (not just some "private organization") rules override contrary state law.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


This is not your Grandparents politics any longer, the lines between Demo and Rep are Maya.

reply to post by 1BornPatriot


You really think 8 out of 10 people know who Ron Paul is? I wish I had your confidence in the American public. I'd be impressed if it was 5 out of 10.

And you think 4 out of 10 people will vote for him? That's a 40% share...really?

I have no illusions about Paul winning the nomination (he won't, it will be Romney) or the election (he won't, even if as an independent or write in), but I do want him to make a good showing (between 5 and 10 percent of the popular vote, any more is likely fantasy, but I'll take it...), just to send a message to Washington that we realize we don't have to pick from the two that are being rammed down our throats by the mass media.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Wait a second you actually think the GOP wants to beat obama by sending in Romney? The Obama fan boys can't tell the difference? Wow it must be one hell of a circus illusion then.

Originally posted by jlm912
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

I've already explained this on a previous thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Federal courts have agreed that national party (not just some "private organization") rules override contrary state law.

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.

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."

Interesting post my friend.

Thank You.

It does seem state law is still over party regulations.
Just says national party rules trump state party rules, not state laws..
except when it comes to qualifying to be a delegate.
Not the binding if by state law however.

So basically NO Delegates are Bound except under state Law. If they are bound in this way they will continue to be bound, as much as I wish that were not true..

Ron Paul 2012!

reply to post by Dustytoad




Here's the source: mi.findacase.com...

It's all right there in the case law. It was a case against Michigan State Republican Party claiming violation of the first amendment, but as it was explained, the responsibility is not on the state level, but the national level, so the suit was turned down. That's the psych-out, though. National Republican Party won't "bind" delegates themselves. They leave it up to state law, so anyone who complains turns to the state when the offender is ultimately the NRP. So the legal counsel has made it clear that they don't recognize states' binding of delegates, because it'd be their @$$ in court if they did... It's a sly illusion. Delegates are free to vote for whoever they please at the RNC.

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." In Democratic Party of the United States, the Court held that a national party(not just the Democratic Party) was not bound by a state statute requiring an open presidential primary with delegates selected thereby forced to vote according to the results of the primary.

States can't force delegates to vote according to the primaries.

Like I said, it's a loophole illusion. If the NRC enforces state laws binding delegates, the NRC would be violating the first amendment of the delegates.


ETA more context to the quote

here's the fairvote page on the unit rule that I believe was referenced in the vid...

www.fairvote.org...

For further clarification on the meaning of Rule 38, it is instructive to look to the debate in 1964 when the RNC debated whether to strike the Rule 38 language from a proposed amendment that was adopted that year. The debate begins on page 64 of this source. The RNC voted 59 to 41 to keep the rule in the amendment, noting that it helped to clarify a longstanding practice that a delegate was free to take exception to the roll call, and was free to vote his or her preference. Those who sought to strike the rule feared that its inclusion in the rules would give delegates freedom from both a non-existent legal obligation and a moral obligation to vote according to instructions from their state. However, even these opponents of the rule admitted that there never has been any legal obligation for a delegate to do so.

And if you read the above Unit Rule Debate pdf, on p66, it's clearly stated:

All any delegate has to do is stand up and say, I want a poll of the delegation and his vote be recorded in accordance with his wishes regardless of any attempt on the part of any delegation either at a state convention by state law or by the state delegation to impose upon him a position or person he does not wish to support

so I'm sure paul suporters would be OK if a delegate paul "earned" voted for romney, right ?

reply to post by syrinx high priest


Are you saying Romney "earned" bound delegates? If anything, he "earned" the popular vote, but at the RNC it's the vote of the delegates that count. If his supporters weren't diligent enough to become delegates, oh well...

Delegates are people, not possessions.

What do you suggest he did to "earn" delegates anyhow?

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Why would a state make a LAW concerning a private organization such as the state republican party. The state conventions are part of each states branch of the RNC. So the same logic you are throwing around about the national GOP applies at the state level as well.

Something else to think about is, since the voting and convention are all held in Tampa, how would, say Maine law have any jurisdiction over the Maine delegate in attendance?

In the face of those of you Paul haters who were swearing that you knew what you were talking about regarding delegates being bound. You know who you are, but something tells me you will have zero humility, and won't admit you were wrong. I don't know if I am allowed to post the names of those people, who have all lost any shred of credibility they had, as it may be against the rules. But hopefully we all know exactly who I am talking about.

This is really good news though for those who truly want to see change in the government; power given back to the states and taken away from the federal government.

Originally posted by jlm912
reply to post by Dustytoad

 

Here's the source: mi.findacase.com...

It's all right there in the case law. It was a case against Michigan State Republican Party claiming violation of the first amendment, but as it was explained, the responsibility is not on the state level, but the national level, so the suit was turned down. That's the psych-out, though. National Republican Party won't "bind" delegates themselves. They leave it up to state law, so anyone who complains turns to the state when the offender is ultimately the NRP. So the legal counsel has made it clear that they don't recognize states' binding of delegates, because it'd be their @$$ in court if they did... It's a sly illusion. Delegates are free to vote for whoever they please at the RNC.

Where the haters at to argue case law that supports us?

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by antar

 

I still think Ron Paul will win the nomination and go on to fight/debate obama. That is one of main reasons 'they' do not want Dr Paul, 'they' know he can actually win the debates and get millions to vote for him as President.

So you are saying the GOP knows Ron Paul can beat Obama...and they don't want that???



Can you at least admit that Ron Paul has lost every States popular vote up to this point???

Come on Outty... you know as well as I do that there isn't a real democrat or republican party anymore.. its just the Establishment and yes they know that Ron Paul can beat Obama and no they don't want that... why you ask... well

Its because they pick who they want in office and they would be happy with either Obama or Romney because they wouldn't be in any danger of actually changing real issues.. Obama parties with Hollywood and Romney would party with Wall Street... Ron Paul is the only one addressing real issues which since your such a hater your well aware of.

The government NEVER WILLING gives back power it has taken and it will not give up healthcare and all that goes with it.. which I'm sure even bottom dwellers can figure out.

This isn't a matter of being a Paulite... or a cultist... this is a matter of awarness and america is becoming aware of the Establishment and its games.

So go ahead and try and rip Ron Paul... but you know what if any other canidate was treated the way he is treated by the MSM they would be crying and whining and moaning and bitching..... Ron Paul has class and character.

So do what you do and everyone will see, because we do see you... we know what you are.... you make us laugh... and ulitimately you help our cause.

Thankyou Outty