Supreme court has ruled on delegates being forced to vote for a candidate in 1980

[Titus]

bcreps85, that is the hard part. I have not found any case law regarding party binding rules. The government has some minimal exceptions to that rule, i.e. if the procedures were not fair or the fees intended to act like a poll tax. Basically, the government can look at an election procedure are fair and non-discriminatory but they must be indifferent to who wins.

This leaves us no where on how to interpret Rule 38. That is where the legal memo that Ben Swann uncovered matters. That says that the RNC itself does not respect binding. Obviously if the RNC insisted on binding now, it would look like the rules might be changed solely to favor Mitt Romney. That might make things suspicious to a court. Though this is really something that would need an expert at Tampa. There are too many things that could happen at Tampa and far too little case law to speculate intelligently. That being said, I am of the opinion that delegates are not bound currently unless there is another memo by the RNC.

 

[romancito]

Good research. But it seems to me that the rule's interpretation towards our situation deals with a community that is animated and intended on exercising its rights. As I see it lately the Ron Paul campaign has given up the right to vote "rogue" and asserting the rights of the 'so called' Romney bound delegates to vote their conscience. This or these rights are being given up for the 'so called' intellectuality of the movement meaning that making waves or being 'rouge' is not pleasing to the intellectual leader of the campaign, i.e. Ron Paul. That's because exercising such rights come in conflict with long term objectives of overtaking the party with ideas and correlated party officers. In other words, it would be better to slowly change the party than to exercise the delegate's rights to vote their conscience during 'first ballot.' In order to assert a right you must want to do it above the immediate consequences. Ron Paul seems to me is not intended or does not really want to become President over other intellectual goals. So those who are being led, like us, must adopt the party leader's modus operandi, that is, having patience until the number of intellectual revolutionaries outnumber the central government planners.

So even if the right to vote their conscience is there, it seems to me that the campaign is choosing to play along to get along. So it seems to me we have to wait for another organization to come along to get small government. Lets wait so more. And wait so more. And wait so more. The word 'r3VOLution' I think is being misapplied.

 

[LostNFoundNTx]

Bull shit
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=479&invol=208

Used in striking down a state law which restricted people from participating in Republican Party events under Republican Party rules. Like the rest of this thread, not relevant to Paul delegates in Tampa.

 

[robertwerden]

Used in striking down a state law which restricted people from participating in Republican Party events under Republican Party rules. Like the rest of this thread, not relevant to Paul delegates in Tampa.

Right, this strikes down State law binding the delegates, allowing the delegates to arrive at the national convention UN FUCKING BOUND

 

[Titus]

Robert... that's what I just said. Private parties are protected by the first amendment but it is association not speech. Private parties can compel speech. The case you cited says that the states cannot enforce a open or closed primary. That is accurate. The state cannot tell you who you can associate with. Local parties state they want closed parties. California, my state, has such a memo.

Voting for a delegate is the speech part which is not discussed.

 

[rp2012win]

It says a state cannot override rules of the national party when the national rules explicitly exclude participation from a group of individuals. It doesn't apply to the current situation at all.

This is correct and the ruling actually hurts us

 

[LostNFoundNTx]

Right, this strikes down State law binding the delegates, allowing the delegates to arrive at the national convention UN FUCKING BOUND

The Republican Party rules acknowledges state law in matters like this, meaning the laws are not restricting the Republican Party's freedom of assocation at all. If the Republican Party rules changed in a way that explicitly allowed things that the state laws prohibit, then you'd have grounds for a challenge.

 

[robertwerden]

GOAL: Arrive at Tampa unbound
Obstacle : State party rules binding delegates
Solution: United States constitution, 1st Amendment
Case Law that backs up assertion : Supreme Court rulings that 1st Amendment applies to partisan political parties.

 

[LostNFoundNTx]

GOAL: Arrive at Tampa unbound
Obstacle : State party rules binding delegates
Solution: United States constitution, 1st Amendment
Case Law that backs up assertion : Supreme Court rulings that 1st Amendment applies to partisan political parties.

To reach the goal along this path, you'd need a court to state that a private party does not have the freedom of assocation of its members and that a private party cannot limit the set of individuals who can participate. Your arguments are based on the idea that courts can't do this, which means this entire concept directly contradicts itself.

 

[romancito]

GOAL: Arrive at Tampa unbound
Obstacle : State party rules binding delegates
Solution: United States constitution, 1st Amendment
Case Law that backs up assertion : Supreme Court rulings that 1st Amendment applies to partisan political parties.

Good scenario that I support. But if the campaign is not going to support it with statements and press releases but rather suppress it with lukewarm conciliatory speech then the whole thing goes out the window. The facts are that the Romney bound delegates are being asserted by all parties, MSM, Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, RNC, etc. and finally as a conciliatory gesture, the Ron Paul campaign too. I personally would like to see this right exercised and the campaign to assert the rights of its delegates to act according to their conscience. I don't think we can afford another 10 years of "education" because "corruption" is just to pervasive to think that is will not have an influence once Dr. Paul is out of the picture. I think it is now or never.

 

[Titus]

Robert, that case applies to freedom of association NOT speech. In fact, that case states what I have been saying. The government hesitates to interfere with the association rights of parties. Speech is interpreted in a much different manner.

You are right that the first amendment applies but the courts can only act the action of the party can be determined as state action. Furthermore, that state action must be prohibited. Ex: Whites are the only ones who can run is prohibited. Poll Taxes prohibited. Binding would unquestionably be ok if the RNC had a consistent position on the issue. However, if the rules are whatever favors Mitt Romney, I cannot imagine that going over well with a court.

That being said, I emailed something regarding challenging to North Dakota. If they have some opportunity and desire to challenge, they will. We have no standing. You have said your piece, you move on. We cannot act on the campaigns behalf. Legal challenges are over for past conventions. All we can do is suggest.

 

[robertwerden]

To reach the goal along this path, you'd need a court to state that a private party does not have the freedom of assocation of its members and that a private party cannot limit the set of individuals who can participate. Your arguments are based on the idea that courts can't do this, which means this entire concept directly contradicts itself.

No, we need a court to say that the delegates have the freedom of association
And that the Partisan political party can not infringe on the Constitutional rights.
The court cases I have already posted have backed up those two issues. So this is case closed.

 

[robertwerden]

Look I don't know who here is a Constitutional lawyer, you can sit and argue about it all you want.
Here is what I am going to do.


NO ONE BUT PAUL!

 

[Titus]

Robert, I think we can agree that getting Ron Paul to win is the important thing. I disagree with you on this issue and all my law school studies tell me that. However, I respect the intellectual discourse, so +rep.

Get a lot of votes in Texas's primary and get some more delegates.

 

[robertwerden]

Robert, I think we can agree that getting Ron Paul to win is the important thing. I disagree with you on this issue and all my law school studies tell me that. However, I respect the intellectual discourse, so +rep.

Get a lot of votes in Texas's primary and get some more delegates.

Rep back at ya

 

[romancito]

If Benton is beginning to take steps towards an implied endorsement of Romney for President, then to tell you truth all our excitement will fizzle out with the same slowness that Ron Paul wishes for it to grow instead. That's what I am seeing. They know that even if Romney does not get a first ballot nomination, Ron Paul will not get enough delegates, no matter how you look at it, to get the nomination. But with Santorum and Gingrich endorsing Romney the writing is on the wall. Suddenly something was lost in the dialogue, a winning spirit or a combative spirit if you will. The want to bank on the long term growth of the movement. I will have to bank on something new other than Ron Paul to get the goal of small government back in play. Like a good economic collapse.

 

[robertwerden]

If Benton is beginning to take steps towards an implied endorsement of Romney for President, then to tell you truth all our excitement will fizzle out with the same slowness that Ron Paul wishes for it to grow instead. That's what I am seeing. They know that even if Romney does not get a first ballot nomination, Ron Paul will not get enough delegates, no matter how you look at it, to get the nomination. But with Santorum and Gingrich endorsing Romney the writing is on the wall. Suddenly something was lost in the dialogue, a winning spirit or a combative spirit if you will. The want to bank on the long term growth of the movement. I will have to bank on something new other than Ron Paul to get the goal of small government back in play. Like a good economic collapse.

Don't be defeatist.

 

[romancito]

Don't be defeatist.

My prefer scenario would be: Romney is denied first ballot nomination by Ron Paul's delegates voting "rogue" that is abstaining. The Convention opens. Then maybe after a few votes a ticket emerges such like Sarah Palin/Rand Paul or Paul Ryan/Rand Paul or Jeff Bush/Sarah Palin or something like that. Romney to become Secretary of State like Hillary did with Obama and Ron Paul Secretary of the Treasury. Just some thoughts. But Romney bound delegates that are Ron Paul supporters need to get unbound or vote abstain. If the Ron Paul campaign does not stimulate that happening then the only thing that will happen is Romney will be nominated.

 

[robertwerden]

My prefer scenario would be: Romney is denied first ballot nomination by Ron Paul's delegates voting "rogue" that is abstaining. The Convention opens. Then maybe after a few votes a ticket emerges such like Sarah Palin/Rand Paul or Paul Ryan/Rand Paul or Jeff Bush/Sarah Palin or something like that. Romney to become Secretary of State like Hillary did with Obama and Ron Paul Secretary of the Treasury. Just some thoughts. But Romney bound delegates that are Ron Paul supporters need to get unbound or vote abstain. If the Ron Paul campaign does not stimulate that happening then the only thing that will happen is Romney will be nominated.

No candidate who has not won plurality of delegates in at least 5 states can be nominated from the floor. So forget about anyone else being nominated except those who actually competed in the process.

That being said, if we can at least deny Romney the nomination on the first round, then the 2 candidates can be voted to give speeches, just like Goldwater did. My wish is that some non Ron Paul delegates will actually listen and switch their vote. I am certain that if the vote count on the 3rd round of voting is larger for Ron Paul than on the second round of voting, then we will win because the momentum will be in our favor. However if on the second round of voting Romney gets more votes than on the first round, then it is over for us and plan B gets enacted.

 

[Titus]

That might be Ron Paul's strategy Robert. Frankly, if I was the campaign, national convention strategy is something to be played close to the vest.