General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNot a Single Republican Delegate Is ‘Bound’ to Donald Trump (Bit of a peek into the dark side)
(Forgive the National Review source; interestingly, it is the best source for OPO research on Don The Con.)
National Review, Online
By: David French
June 10, 2016
Lets begin with a simple proposition: As a matter of law and history, there is not a single bound delegate to the Republican National Convention.
Not one delegate is required to vote for Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, or any other individual who won votes in the primary process. Each delegate will have to make his or her own choice. They and they alone will choose the Republican nominee. The paragraph above contradicts much of what youve been told about the presidential nominating process, and it even contradicts state law in multiple jurisdictions, but state law does not govern the Republican party. The party governs itself, and according to the rules it has implemented, there is only one convention where the delegates were truly bound: 1976s, when Gerald Ford fended off a challenge from Ronald Reagan. In every other Republican convention ever held, every delegate has been free to vote their conscience.
Lets break this down, legal step by legal step:
1. State legislatures cannot violate the First Amendment rights of Republican delegates. Throughout the primary, pundits have reminded voters again and again that there exists a patchwork quilt of state laws that require delegates to follow the will of the primary voters sometimes only through one ballot, sometimes through more. These laws are unconstitutional. A state entity cannot mandate the manner in which private citizens govern private organizations. Indeed, the notion that states can compel members of private associations to vote according to primary results is a fundamentally progressive notion, an expansion of the government into the private sphere. Yet First Amendment guarantees of free speech and freedom of association stand as a bulwark against exactly this kind of government interference.
Indeed, the Supreme Court has already ruled that in a conflict between state law and national-party rules, the national-party rules take precedence. In Cousins v. Wigoda, the High Court decided a dispute between two delegate slates to the 1972 Democratic Convention one slate (the Cousins slate) was selected according to Illinois state law; the other (the Wigoda slate) was actually seated at the convention. The Court granted review to determine whether Illinois courts were correct in according primacy to state law over the National Political Partys rules in the determination of the qualifications and eligibility of delegates to the Partys National Convention.
The Court ruled for Wigoda, holding that: The States themselves have no constitutionally mandated role in the great task of the selection of Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates. If the qualifications and eligibility of delegates to National Political Party Conventions were left to state law each of the fifty states could establish the qualifications of its delegates to the various party conventions without regard to party policy, an obviously intolerable result. Such a regime could seriously undercut or indeed destroy the effectiveness of the National Party Convention as a concerted enterprise engaged in the vital process of choosing Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates a process which usually involves coalitions cutting across state lines. [Internal citations omitted.]
Or, to put it in plain English, the Court essentially told the states to mind their own business and let the parties govern themselves.
Excerpted due to copy right. Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436428/republican-convention-delegates-not-bound-donald-trump
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)stopbush
(24,605 posts)MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)But while there are Bernie supporters like myself who don't think Clinton is particularly honest or progressive, we will toe the line given the alternative. Yes, we feel a bit like an abused spouse with no where to go. But such in life.
Republicans, not so much. 60% of the Republican voters voted for someone besides Trump. They hate his guts and are ready to burn the bed.
LannyDeVaney
(1,033 posts)Yes, we feel a bit like an abused spouse with no where to go.
Seriously?
MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)I haven't had any coffee or food because I had to fast for a blood test.
I am kind of pissy.
LannyDeVaney
(1,033 posts)stopbush
(24,605 posts)Your point?
MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)As will most slightly-disaffected Democrats.
I think Republicans are beyond disaffected with Trump.
Rubio just said he wouldn't trust Trump with the nuclear codes, for example.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Our D campaigns of course need to go anti trump, but there needs to be planning if trump is switched for cruz, jeb! and Rubio.
MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)Is the name being battered about by my friends still in the game.
He's well-liked by Jeb and Cruz.
Wounded Bear
(60,422 posts)if they do switch, whoever they switch to would be weaker than Trump. That's definitely a 'lose for principle' strategy for them.
But hey
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)This election is what Republicans deserve, they built that Bullshit mountain by allowing bigots and baggers to set their agenda.
Wounded Bear
(60,422 posts)wounds are self-inflicted. They let 'populist' hate talk radio and TV drive their agenda and recruit their base.
There used to be moderate Repubs. Now they've all been driven to the Democratic Pary, which has drug us to the right far, far too much for good health. The "new" base is trying to drag it back, and hopefully will succeed, if only just a little for now.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)Still working that third party angle, NRO? Yeah, I'm sure that all the Republican voters (remember them?) that handed the nomination to Donald Trump would be just as fine as frog hair to have the party elders and elites descend from Bullshit Mountain to inform them that while the cognoscenti appreciated the voters' input, they made the wrong choice. Here, let us present you with who you should have voted for: Insert name here .
If that's what you're thinking, a little friendly advice: Whatever the Republicans have budgeted for security in Cleveland, triple it.
MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)Whether they have the balls to do it depends on how bad Trumps starts to smell between now and then.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)I'm sure they'll passively stand aside when their betters decide who their party nominee should be. Since it's legal and stuff.
MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)But the Trump supporters are merely a plurality --40% or so of Republicans.
If the TEA Party types (e.g., Cruz) and the establishment types (e.g., Jeb!) unify --- they would have the majority.
But, yeah, it would be ugly.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)If the delegates can vote however they want?
MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)It's all a show.
We live in a Republic, not a Democracy.
You vote for people who you think will represent your goals. They may have other ideas.
RussBLib
(9,633 posts)in the GOP would go out and stump for Trump.
Why not put a tire loaded with concrete around your neck and jump into the river?
Gman
(24,780 posts)That requires assumptions and assertions to get there. Relying solely n freedom of speech as an argument is extremely thin. The GOP rules say they're bound on the first ballot. The establishment 's only chance is ramrod rules changes when they don't have the votes to do. I'm .
sarcasmo
(23,968 posts)Own it, Republicans.
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)It's one of the few things he's been right about.
Gothmog
(153,721 posts)The GOP rules bind delegates but the candidate does not have approval rights over delegates. Democratic rules provide for candidate approval of delegates who are not bound
quaker bill
(8,232 posts)And the PTB on the R side thinks they survive better losing the Whitehouse in Nov and hanging on to as much of the Senate and House as they can. This scenario is compared to dumping Trump at the convention and having that wrecking ball go third party or simply spending some of his money to damage their candidates all around the country.
I expect the Don to be the candidate because it will keep him occupied and somewhat controlled until after the election, and for most of the GOP to run away from him. Watch the GOP money, my guess is that much more of it will go down ballot than usual.
In short, if he is the candidate, most of the damage he will do will be to himself. If they dump him, he will spend his time and money damaging others.