Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Delegates at large and their alternate delegates and delegates from Congressional districts and their alternate delegates to the national convention shall be elected, selected, allocated, or bound in the following manner:
(1) In accordance with any applicable Republican Party rules of a state, insofar as the same are not inconsistent with these rules; or
(2) To the extent not provided for in the applicable Republican Party rules of a state, in accordance with any applicable laws of a state, insofar as the same are not inconsistent with these rules; or
(3) By a combination of the methods set forth in paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this rule; or(4) To the extent not provided by state law or party rules, as set forth in paragraph (d) of this rule.
Also 3 points:
#1 Ron Paul's fans are using a bogus argument about a lawyer ruling on an issue of whether the entire state's delegates are forced to vote with the majority. Technically not on whether they are bound.
#2 The GOP establishment will determine the definition of their own rules. Ron Paul fans are putting a lot of faith in the GOP upsetting a lot of people by saying the guy who the masses wants is void so Paul can be a despot.
#3 The GOP establishment can scrap the convention if they deem it proper. Would it not be proper to give it to a guy who will have won 40+ contests versus the guy who has won ZERO states and only appeals to college kids and tin foil hat people?
We have Mitt to thank for this "legal" statement. Utah County GOP (Unofficial) » Blog Archive » Mr. Jenkins Goes to ...
quote: And never mind the fact that 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.”
Delegates at large and their alternate delegates and delegates from Congressional districts and their alternate delegates to the national convention shall be elected, selected, allocated, or bound in the following manner:
(1) In accordance with any applicable Republican Party rules of a state, insofar as the same are not inconsistent with these rules; or
(2) To the extent not provided for in the applicable Republican Party rules of a state, in accordance with any applicable laws of a state, insofar as the same are not inconsistent with these rules; or
(3) By a combination of the methods set forth in paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this rule; or(4) To the extent not provided by state law or party rules, as set forth in paragraph (d) of this rule.
Also 3 points:
#1 Ron Paul's fans are using a bogus argument about a lawyer ruling on an issue of whether the entire state's delegates are forced to vote with the majority. Technically not on whether they are bound.
#2 The GOP establishment will determine the definition of their own rules. Ron Paul fans are putting a lot of faith in the GOP upsetting a lot of people by saying the guy who the masses wants is void so Paul can be a despot.
#3 The GOP establishment can scrap the convention if they deem it proper. Would it not be proper to give it to a guy who will have won 40+ contests versus the guy who has won ZERO states and only appeals to college kids and tin foil hat people?
You make it sound as if the GOP rules are federal law, with jail time and fines! This is an organization, that is in the process of reorganization. Where the people make the rules, not the establishment. There is power in numbers, right?
Time for a change. We can only hope.
Remember Hope & Change? Did we get it, or is DC worse than ever?
shall be elected, selected, allocated, or bound in the following manner:
(1) In accordance with any applicable Republican Party rules of a state, insofar as the same are not inconsistent with these rules; or
(2) To the extent not provided for in the applicable Republican Party rules of a state, in accordance with any applicable laws of a state, insofar as the same are not inconsistent with these rules; or
(3) By a combination of the methods set forth in paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this rule; or(4) To the extent not provided by state law or party rules, as set forth in paragraph (d) of this rule.
Delegates at large and their alternate delegates and delegates from Congressional districts and their alternate delegates to the national convention shall be elected, selected, allocated, or bound in the following manner:
(1) In accordance with any applicable Republican Party rules of a state, insofar as the same are not inconsistent with these rules; or
(2) To the extent not provided for in the applicable Republican Party rules of a state, in accordance with any applicable laws of a state, insofar as the same are not inconsistent with these rules; or
(3) By a combination of the methods set forth in paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this rule; or(4) To the extent not provided by state law or party rules, as set forth in paragraph (d) of this rule.
That is true. However, the delegates that are RP supporters plan on abstaining on the first vote in Florida. These delegates that do abstain then forfeit their position to an alternate delegate, but the damage is already done. Secondly, these delegates plan on using the five state majority rule (which RP almost has) to call for a complete change of the rules.
Delegates at large and their alternate delegates and delegates from Congressional districts and their alternate delegates to the national convention shall be elected, selected, allocated, or bound in the following manner:
(1) In accordance with any applicable Republican Party rules of a state, insofar as the same are not inconsistent with these rules; or
(2) To the extent not provided for in the applicable Republican Party rules of a state, in accordance with any applicable laws of a state, insofar as the same are not inconsistent with these rules; or
(3) By a combination of the methods set forth in paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this rule; or(4) To the extent not provided by state law or party rules, as set forth in paragraph (d) of this rule.
That is true. However, the delegates that are RP supporters plan on abstaining on the first vote in Florida. These delegates that do abstain then forfeit their position to an alternate delegate, but the damage is already done. Secondly, these delegates plan on using the five state majority rule (which RP almost has) to call for a complete change of the rules.
Any links? What is being omitted is Rule 38.
Quote from earlier article I posted. To explain our case, we look to the language of Rule 38, which was adopted in its current form in 1964. The rule states: “no delegate shall be bound by any attempt of any state or Congressional district to impose the unit rule.” The unit rule does not prohibit a state from using a winner-take-all primary in the same way that Rule 15(b) prohibits most states from using a winner-take-all primary when holding a contest earlier than April 1st. However, the unit rule does prohibit binding delegates to vote according to how a majority of delegates from their state vote – again, a scenario most likely to occur in a state using the winner-take-all rule. Rules of the Republican Party
You make it sound as if the GOP rules are federal law, with jail time and fines! This is an organization, that is in the process of reorganization. Where the people make the rules, not the establishment. There is power in numbers, right?
Time for a change. We can only hope.
Remember Hope & Change? Did we get it, or is DC worse than ever?
You want to speak numbers? Romney has 5 times the votes of Paul. Romney will have 40+ wins on convention day and Ron Paul will have won zero states.
Any links? What is being omitted is Rule 38.
Quote from earlier article I posted. To explain our case, we look to the language of Rule 38, which was adopted in its current form in 1964. The rule states: “no delegate shall be bound by any attempt of any state or Congressional district to impose the unit rule.” The unit rule does not prohibit a state from using a winner-take-all primary in the same way that Rule 15(b) prohibits most states from using a winner-take-all primary when holding a contest earlier than April 1st. However, the unit rule does prohibit binding delegates to vote according to how a majority of delegates from their state vote – again, a scenario most likely to occur in a state using the winner-take-all rule. Rules of the Republican Party
Thank you.
As per my link. The official GOP rules mention states binding delegates.....obviously they are fine with it. The Unit Rule is something slightly different.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
hmm...
