36 votes

UPDATE : 5-11 Urgent : Ben Swann And Matt Larson Are Wrong About RULE 38 And Delegates Being Unbound Based On RNC Rules

Just please for the love of God listen and read carefully, this is important.

The talk about rule 38 being in conflict of rule 15 IS INCORRECT.

Rule 38 pertains to the Unit Rule which states very clearly :

No delegate or alternate delegate shall be bound by any attempt of any state or Congressional district to impose the unit rule.


To debate this rule you must first understand what the UNIT RULE IS

This is defined very clearly in your state bylaws as well as the meriam websters dictionary. UNIT RULE MEANS : :

A rule under which a delegation to a national political convention casts its entire vote as a unit as determined by a majority vote.

The key word here is ENTIRE :

The states get around this rule by not binding the ENTIRE group of delegates, they always have at least 1 delegate unbound and it is usually 3 unbound delegates. So they are not enforcing a UNIT RULE in any way.

Therefore; rule 38 does not apply to the argument.

If the delegates are going to be succesful at the convention it is important that they are getting the proper information on the rules as they are written.

Now please stop with rule 38 because Ben Swann is incorrect as are most people pushing this agenda.

You need to be looking at abstaining and what your state bylaws state about abstaining.

UPDATED : I was not WRONG and I knew 100% I was not wrong or I would not have made this post, I was attempting to make sure people weren''t going to try to utilize rule 38 as argument in the wrong manner because it would have hurt the delegates. I was also trying not to say what Ben Swann just said at this moment in time.

If you read my comments on this subject even in this post I state I would talk about other things later, well I guess later is now.

So now that everyone knows not to use rule 38 in the wrong manner and they are free to do what they wish at the convention as far as a delegate vote, they also need to look at what penalty could be enforced on them by their state if they break state party rules should Ron Paul not get enough delegates to clinch the nomination.

As I stated in my post the if delegates are to be successful make sure they are getting the proper information on the rules as they are written.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


What neverquit says here:

"what penalty could be enforced on them by their state if they break state party rules should Ron Paul not get enough delegates to clinch the nomination."

I've been trying to find that answer and have not, instead the closest I came to getting an answer came from the CFR on "delegates jobs at conventions", which explained the difference between Democrtas and Republicans methods and rules at convention, and the CFR admits that not all information is made abailable to the public.

Do You Want to Support Ben Swann and Keep Him on the Air?

A message to everyone who supports Ben Swann (he's a hero of mine): Don't just watch his videos on YouTube. The advertising money will go to some random person.

Instead go straight to the source! The link below links directly to the reality check main website on Fox 19. That way the ad money goes directly to his station, and the owners get a MUCH better idea about just how many people watch him (due to the large number of website hits)!


You can also sign up for the email list so that they send you an email every time there is a new reality check. This way, if the station faces increasing pressure to cancel his show, they will be making enough extra money from ad revenue that they will reconsider.

If you really want to support Ben Swann, please do it this way!

How about this one then, NQ?

42 USC § 1971 - Voting rights Section (b) states:

"...(b) Intimidation, threats, or coercion
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."

Any and all 'rules' made by parties to force delegates to force a certain way are trumped by Federal statute, no? Si!

Are you Steve Parent?

Neverquit, are you Steve Parent or is Steve Parent just taking the credit for this post?


Ben swann


Keep up the good work
It matters not who saves face, what matters is the truth and dissent is a good way to find it.

Stand tall and refrain from personal attacks like using the word idiot. I get you responded but you stood in dissent for a reason, it was not to find our weakest links.

We still have time and with a healthy debate a clear path will emerge, it always does.

I watch this debate about rule 38 closely and appreciate this site giving a fair and well advocated debate.

You have been challenged, follow the Dr. and stand tall, with class.

Thanks for the sacrifices


I think his conclusion is also based on the RNC lawyer letter

If you watch his recent report - there was a part at the end where he reads a letter prompted by a delegate's actions at the 2008 convention.

I think we need to consider "the whole".


And an idiot. And now,on with the show:once and for all their all unbound,get over it,get used to it,and stop trying to undermine the revolution Romneyite.that you won't get done.

Some see things as they are and say why,but i dream things that never were and say why not. Robert F. Kennedy

I think you are out of line

You shouldn't call this guy an idiot because he raised questions. The same questions a lot of us had, and still may have. The new update from Ben sounds legit to me, but I have to say, the last report did leave a lot of room for discussion, and there is still a lot of discussion to be had. Thanks to the questions raised by never quit, Ben dug deeper, and now we have MORE proof that we may not have had otherwise. This forum is for debate and discussion, and I don't believe Neverquit had any I'll intentions. He, like all of us, just want to have the facts straight so we can WIN, if we get this wrong, it can risk the future of America.

Idiot? wow, It seems you have

Thank you for calling me an idiot, it is appreciated; however, You # 1 : did not listen to what Ben said and # 2 : You didn't even read my post correctly.


Don't outthink yourself. THe RNC has set a presidence in 2008. It is what it is. Vote how you want and let the lawyers gum it all up! The truth always wins out! R3volutions can get ugly...But we're in the right here.

Let Wrong Threads Die..........

Let this thread die a lonely death

Ben Swann just talked about you! You're famous! And wrong. :)



Be honest! You've never been so happy to be wrong!!


Thank you for making me laugh

Thank you for making me laugh this morning :)

Anytime! :)

I'm still so damn happy about Ben's news! :-D

Famous and wrong

like the weatherman!

So awesome! We should all be very, very proud of the Daily Paul, it's members, and the spirit it instills for events like this.

Consider all of the things we now witness that wouldn't happen without love and action?

They that give up liberty for security deserve neither.

I wasn't wrong and I knew I

I wasn't wrong and I knew I was wrong, but now the cat is out of the bag and I will now have to write another post that will talk abour what could happen to the delegates breaking state rules if they don't use those rules correctly.

I wasn't wrong and I knew I was wrong,


I mis typed, I meant to say I

I mis typed, I meant to say I was not wrong and I knew I wasn't wrong, if you notice my post was written is a specific way about rule 38 ONLY!

I will be posting more info soon now that Ben let one of the cats out of the bag.

Hey Never........

Ben didn't let one of the cats out of the bag. The information was out there for everyone to read. Heck, all of the information Ben talked about last night on Reality Check I posted on Feb 2nd......

It is great that Ben Swann is reporting on this though......and it is pretty cool that he used your post. It's a huge compliment to you and how you present and post your argument......


Where is the link to your

Where is the link to your post, I would love to see it.

My post was based on fact of rule 38 and the misconception around the rule that was floating around and it was not wrong or I wouldn't have posted in the first place. It is important that EVERYONE involved know the rules and how to utilize them.

Hey Never...Here's The Link

Ok....here's the thread I started on Feb 6th(thought it was the 2nd).......


Once at that thread....click on the fairvote link I pasted......

Once your on the fairvote site....click on the "one source" link in the article......

Like I said....I created this thread on Feb 6th...the information was available for anyone to read it.

Cool how you ended up on Ben

Cool how you ended up on Ben Swann's show! As an aside whichever is right or wrong, with Gingrich/Santorum out of the race, and our delegate strategy working, we may have a shot of keeping Romney shy of his 1,144 delegates anyway. We have to find a way to hit Texas and California HARD on a grassroots level, since the campaign has no money.

I could care less about news

I could care less about news coverage, this isn't about me, it is about making sure people are getting proper information.

Like I said I was not wrong and I knew I was not wrong when I made this post.

I think I have to agree

No biggie though, Ron is wrong about Cruz. We can all be wrong now and then.

You are right about that


I think the Good Doc was merely being courteous, as nowhere

in that Austin-TeaPartyExpress rally speech, he did he support him.

Though I do wonder if his personal 'don't attack local TX incumbent' rule is still in play. While that in no way diminishes my support for him, not even a nano iota, it is curious as he's not running for House of Rep. seat anymore; it'd be nice if he endorsed Sheriff Mack, who WILL be a TRUE 'backup' vs. neocon scumF'r like Lamar Smith.

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

I got an email from LPAC

I got an email from LPAC yesterday titled:

Ted Cruz Needs Your Help

Anyone who knows me knows I have a real soft spot in my heart for the state of Texas.

So today, I'm very proud to endorse a fellow Texan – United States Senate candidate Ted Cruz!

But with time running out before the May 29 Republican Primary, I'm asking you to join me in supporting Ted by making a generous donation to his campaign....

It was signed by Ron Paul


Bad press is better than no press, as they say! I was so excited to see one of our own on Reality Check. Then it hit me. Ben is one of our own!!
Great news!

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." Benjamin Franklin