48 votes

Federal Laws Proving Binding of Delegates Is Illegal!

The federal laws are as follows:

11 CFR 100.2(e): ( http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title11-vol1/xml/CFR-2... ) Defining a national convention as a "Federal Election" for the purpose of electing a candidate for federal office. Which states:

“(e) Caucus or Convention. A caucus or convention of a political party is an election if the caucus or convention has the authority to select a nominee for federal office on behalf of that party.”

&

42 USC 1971 - Sec. 1971. Voting rights: ( http://us-code.vlex.com/vid/sec-voting-rights-19251307 ) Which states:

"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"

The Republican party is a private party. A legal voter/delegate is also considered a private party. These private parties are separately governed by numerous federal and state laws (depending on their location).

The Republican National Convention; however, is a federal election made up of multiple private parties which serve to nominate a candidate for the office of the Presidency (which is a federal office position).

The Republican National Convention itself is a federal election bound by federal laws.

These two federal laws alone SHOULD prove that no state law or private party rule can force an individual to vote against their own free will for any federal election. Period!

*** EDIT: ***

After receiving some insightful legal information, I have concluded the following:

Under 42 USC 1971(e) the word “vote” includes all action necessary to make a vote effective.

It appears that it would be easy for one to argue in court that any "threat, coercion, or intimidation" they incurred; interfered with ones right to "vote as he may choose" and undermined their effectiveness to "vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President".

Delegate binding and affidavit coercion could be argued as undermining ones "effectiveness to 'vote'."

This undermining of ones "effectiveness to 'vote'", has been argued and won in multiple supreme court cases. The following is one of the latest cases:

Morse v. Republican Party of Va. - 517 U.S. 186 (1995) ( http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-203.ZO.html )

*** Edit: Again ***

The following should help squelch some of those who disagree with the reality of these facts:

The purpose of stating the first law (11 CFR 100.2(e): http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title11-vol1/xml/CFR-2... ) is to point out the fact that the federal government recognizes a national convention as a federal election.

Here's even more proof the FEDS consider a national convention a federal election: "FOOTNOTES: 1. A national nominating convention is considered a federal election. 11 CFR 100.2(e)." ( http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/delegate.shtml#1 )

I'm pretty sure its safe to say that 11 CFR 100.2(e) defines a national convention as a federal election when the Federal Election Commission defines a national convention as a federal election and THEY reference to 11 CFR 100.2(e) as proof that a national convention is considered a federal election.

See also: 2 USC 431 - Definitions - (1)(B),( http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/431 ): (1) The term “election” means— (B) a convention or caucus of a political party which has authority to nominate a candidate;

The second law (42 USC 1971 - Sec. 1971. Voting rights: http://us-code.vlex.com/vid/sec-voting-rights-19251307 ) simply states federal voting rights laws.

Federal elections must abide by federal election laws (CFR Title 11 - Federal Elections: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2012-title11-vol1/xml/CFR-2... ) and must uphold federal voting rights laws (42 USC 1971: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1971).

National conventions are federal elections and must abide by these laws. Or else... haha

The logic behind my research and conclusions is not legal rocket science; it is common sense. haha

*** Edit: Again. Again.. ***

My common sense just kicked in again:

If these two laws were to be cited and argued in court; a court would find that the argument of defining a national convention as a "federal" election for the purposes of being regulated by "federal" voting rights laws would be irrelevant.

The reason they would find this irrelevant is because 42 USC 1971 – Voting Rights already states that an "election" where citizens “vote" for a "candidate for the office of President” (whether it’s defined as a "federal" election or not) falls under the jurisdiction of 42 USC 1971 – Voting Rights.

National conventions have citizens/delegates who “vote" for a "candidate for the office of President”; therefore, they are bound by 42 USC 1971 – Voting Rights.

Any way you look at it; binding of delegates is illegal.

RnPl2012 Over and out!




Comment viewing options

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

I have been doing this

I have been defending and fighting for people rights since I was 16 years old, I grew up on the streets, I SELF EDUCATED myself because I HAD NO PARENTS to take care of ANYTHING. JUST FYI, I am not Sad, or resentful, or whining like I see a lot here do.I LIKE ME.

I went into the military when I was 18 after Attaining my G.E.D. I raised a family, I went back to school. AND I LEFT my LAST YEAR to HELP DEFEND RON PAUL SUPPORTERS....FOR REAL???

NOW I am starting to rethink this decision based on all the negativity and BULLSHIT here. I have been studying Constitutional Law for over THIRTY YEARS, and I am 50 credits away from a BS in CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION.

FOR those here who Have Shown support in this cause, THANK YOU!!...For those here whom, "Have been here" for x amount of time, I HAVE TOO...44 weeks, I believe, BUT EH, since I do not come in here and take part in the "BULLSHIT" that happens I am not worthy..this is fine, DO IT YOURSELF.

Your mistrust and total rejection are VERY unbecoming a liberty and freedom frame of mind, Your accusations and subversions to YOUR OWN agenda's show that those kicking the loudest may at BEST, the very ones those here need to fear. THERE ARE MANY ways to contact those providing their services FOR FREE to help this situation, all one has to do is ask. BUT TO ASK people to put their information IN A PUBLIC FORUM...YOU DO IT>..THEN I WILL...

BUT to ask us to put OUR information out there for all to see, YOU ARE SADLY MISTAKEN. WE ARE AT RISK HERE TOO...OR do you not see that. WE are the ones putting ourselves IN MORTAL danger, The tricks and tactics used to deter delegates,,..for real?? I mean REALLY?? WE ARE DOING THIS FOR FREE...WE ARE THE ONES WHO are taking the chance at being DEAD....to help along this opportunity to turn around the RNC and THE Dem parties, YES THIS WOULD EFFECT BOTH, and demand that ALL voters are treated equally and with respect...I AM GLAD, I havent been here for x amount of years, FOR FEAR that I too would be SO PARANOID< that I cannot accept ACTUAL, HONEST, HELP when offered, GOOD DAY. DO NOT....look for me back here, I HAVE MUCH better places to help people than a site that neither moderates, or takes the time to contact ME directly, AS I HAVE ASKED NUMEROUS TIMES.

Good luck in WHATEVER You do, and YES, ToolsForJustice is LEGTIMATE, THEY ARE fighting for YOUR RIGHTS to be able to sit at your computers and write hateful, slanderous, malicious lies about people here, to those of you doing this.

JUST REMEMBER THIS, when help DID come, YOU SHOT THE messenger of hope....this effort to right these wrongs will continue, but as for me, I DO NOT feel like defending a bunch of anti- "newbie" crybabies because a site DOES HAVE, decent enough security to keep out those too AFRAID to step inside and find out the truth, talk to people there and see for yourselves.

Uhh..?

What?

THIS IS mainly to those

Who are trying to deggrade this effort, I know there are a LOT of very well informed Respectful people on here too

Ok cool

Thanks for your support

FRONT PAGE PLEASE

This was posted on 5/30 and I missed it. This is absolutely crucial. I have been one of those who was very skeptical about the argument that bound delegates at the convention are not really bound, but I think the combination of these two laws, § 100.2 Election (2 U.S.C. 431(1)) (e) which defines a convention as an election, and 42 USC § 1971 (b), which prohibits "intimidation, threats, or coercion" for the purpose of interfering with anyone who is in the process of voting in an election, makes it pretty clear that "binding" has no legal teeth.

Further, since § 100.2 Election (2 U.S.C. 431(1))(c)(3) says that elections held to nominate delegates to a national nomination convention are ''primary elections'', 42 USC § 1971 (b) applies in state conventions too, which means much of the actions taken there, like conspiring to get Paul supporters falsely arrested at state conventions, is a violation of these federal laws.

This really needs to be front and center on the front page.


"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."

Minarchism
track

It's really somerthing when the lightbulb goes on isn't it?

I didn't think you were going to come around on this Minarchist.

: )

November 6th 2012 I voted for Dr.Ron Paul
"We must remember, elections are short-term efforts. Revolutions are long-term projects." ~ Ron Paul

downvoted???

Why was this downvoted?


"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."

Minarchism
track

of course binding delegates is illegal

the binding of a delegate constitutes an election, Political Parties cannot hold elections. They hold preference polls, But to many they look, taste and smell like elections. They are not, that would be illegal.

They are show cases for the two big parties, that is all. A party does not have to have a primary or a caucus or delegates or a national convention, they can simply put forth thier nominee, that is all that is required.

Thats why they do not elect, mayors, state reps, Senators etc.

When is the last time a delegate elected a US Senator? - Answer, Never.

If a US Senator candidate from a political party wins the primary, the state secretary of that political primary officially contols the paperwork to make that candidate the official nominee, where it is then sent to the state to be put on the ballot, but..the political party technically can put anybody they wish on the ballot.

The only real elections held are general elections. You do not even have to be a member of a political party to run, you just have to get the required signatures to be put on the ballot.

I wont dwell on this..

BUT, some more research on the opinion here IS needed...so i have done it for you....

§ 100.2 Election (2 U.S.C. 431(1)).
(a) Election means the process by which individuals, whether opposed or unopposed, seek nomination for election, or election, to Federal office. The specific types of elections, as set forth at 11 CFR 100.2 (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) are included in this definition.

(b) General election. A general election is an election which meets either of the following conditions:

(1) An election held in even numbered years on the Tuesday following the first Monday in November is a general election.

(2) An election which is held to fill a vacancy in a Federal office (i.e., a special election) and which is intended to result in the final selection of a single individual to the office at stake is a general election. See 11 CFR 100.2(f).

(c) Primary election. A primary election is an election which meets one of the following conditions:

(1) An election which is held prior to a general election, as a direct result of which candidates are nominated, in accordance with applicable State law, for election to Federal office in a subsequent election is a primary election.

(2) An election which is held for the expression of a preference for the nomination of persons for election to the office of President of the United States is a primary election.

(3) An election which is held to elect delegates to a national nominating convention is a primary election.

(4) With respect to individuals seeking federal office as independent candidates, or without nomination by a major party (as defined in 26 U.S.C. 9002(6)), the primary election is considered to occur on one of the following dates, at the choice of the candidate:

(i) The day prescribed by applicable State law as the last day to qualify for a position on the general election ballot may be designated as the primary election for such candidate.

(ii) The date of the last major party primary election, caucus, or convention in that State may be designated as the primary election for such candidate.

(iii) In the case of non-major parties, the date of the nomination by that party may be designated as the primary election for such candidate.

(5) With respect to any major party candidate (as defined at 26 U.S.C. 9002(6)) who is unopposed for nomination within his or her own party, and who is certified to appear as that party's nominee in the general election for the office sought, the primary election is considered to have occurred on the date on which the primary election was held by the candidate's party in that State.
Code of Federal Regulations38
(d) Runoff election. Runoff election means the election which meets either of the following conditions:

(1) The election held after a primary election, and prescribed by applicable State law as the means for deciding which candidate(s) should be certified as a nominee for the Federal office sought, is a runoff election.

(2) The election held after a general election and prescribed by applicable State law as the means for deciding which candidate should be certified as an officeholder elect, is a runoff election.

(e) Caucus or Convention. A caucus or convention of a political party is an election if the caucus or convention has the authority to select a nominee for federal office on behalf of that party.

(f) Special election. Special election means an election which is held to fill a vacancy in a Federal office. A special election may be a primary, general, or runoff election, as defined at 11 CFR 100.2 (b), (c) and (d).

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2012-title11-vol1/xml/CFR-2...

Further more....

§ 108.7 Effect on State law (2 U.S.C. 453).
(a) The provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, and rules and regulations issued thereunder, supersede and preempt any provision of State law with respect to election to Federal office.

(b) Federal law supersedes State law concerning the—

(1) Organization and registration of political committees supporting Federal candidates;

(2) Disclosure of receipts and expenditures by Federal candidates and political committees; and

(3) Limitation on contributions and expenditures regarding Federal candidates and political committees.

(c) The Act does not supersede State laws which provide for the—

(1) Manner of qualifying as a candidate or political party organization;

(2) Dates and places of elections;

(3) Voter registration;

(4) Prohibition of false registration, voting fraud, theft of ballots, and similar offenses;

(5) Candidate's personal financial disclosure; or

(6) Application of State law to the funds used for the purchase or construction of a State or local party office building to the extent described in 11 CFR 300.35.
[45 FR 15117, Mar. 7, 1980, as amended at 67 FR 49119, July 29, 2002]

Testing the law

Just an idea, but would it not be possible for an elected delegate to the national convention to apply to Federal Court seeking a declaratory judgment to confirm this interpretation of the law? If so, this judgment would be binding on the RNC.

It's obvious from a plain reading

Apparently it has never been challenged before because no candidate or his supporters were ever in this position before, so it has never been examined closely.


"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."

Minarchism
track

UNANSWERED QUESTION...

Here's my question:

I understand that this applies to federal elections, including elections/caucuses/primaries where a federal nominee CAN emerge from the election....

BUT

What about the state conventions, from which a nominee does NOT emerge, but rather DELEGATES emerge - and they are not running for federal office. So...

How do these rules apply to state conventions? We vote for state representative delegates, not federal nominees.

Hope some Cornell Lawyer-types pipe up here cuz I'm days away from my convention and I have to say - the Ron Paul ground game people here are not very well organized.

That's covered too.

Please read the entire law. 11 CFR 100.2 (c) (3) states: "An election which is held to elect delegates to a national nominating convention is a primary election."


"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."

Minarchism
track

45 years ago, as a high school student

I was reading up on civics, elections, etc. I found out at that time that a representative form of government, such as our republic, is based on electing delegates to represent the electorate they are elected from. The electorate votes for the delegate as their agent to represent them but not the specifics of how he will carry out that representation. They vote on a man (or woman) and must make their own decisions as to how well he will express their views before they vote for him. The delegate is not bound in his actions, but is always a free agent.

This, of course, is the perception of an old-school student. All this talk in the past few months of binding delegates baffled me. But the federal law you have researched testifies to what I learned long ago.

SteveMT's picture

All of the work involved to win delegates....

who support Ron Paul was not in vain. They cannot be forced to vote for Romney on the first ballot or any other ballot. They can vote for Ron Paul. Great news!

What does this mean

What does this mean? I am not a legal kind of guy... Does this mean that the delegates bound to candidates are really (legally) unbound?

YES

That's exactly what it means. It couldn't be more simple. And anyone who tries to subvert that vote is going to go to jail. They are scared of this folks. That's why all hell will break loose to try and scare Ron Paul delegates from getting involved with this lawsuit because the 'establishment' can't touch those delegates.

Dangerous information be lurking in this thread

TPTB tremble with every revelation.

This is probably the post that precipitated the malware warning

Because it is the most dangerous post on the DailyPaul bar none.

That this post hasn't gotten 1000 thumbs up or gone insanely viral around the internet already really makes me wonder.

This is the post that frees all delegates 1st round.

This is THE LAW that will win the nomination for Ron Paul in Tampa.

Is everyone here asleep?

Everyone jacking their jaws about this State Rule or RNC Rule this that or the other but this trumps them all.

November 6th 2012 I voted for Dr.Ron Paul
"We must remember, elections are short-term efforts. Revolutions are long-term projects." ~ Ron Paul

I just asked for FRONT PAGE coverage

And was downvoted! I don't get it!


"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."

Minarchism
track

Correct !

In Massachusetts , Ron Paul supporters took 16 of 19 delegate slots during recent district caucuses . Voters who weren't registered were given provisional ballots , only for these ballots to be deemed invalid by the party's counsel sighting that the rules had never allowed those provisional ballots to be cast in the first place ? So why hand them out ? Because the majority of these votes are most likely votes for Ron Paul .

Even the Massachusetts GOP has threatened delegates that they must sign a affidavit that they will vote for Romney on the first round of the Republican National Convention in Tampa ... or be Charged with Perjury ?

If this isn't just plain out-right , out-in the-open Election Fraud by the Massachusetts GOP , then I guess you can label it Extortion ?

Definition of EXTORTION

1 : the act or practice of extorting especially money ( or a delegate vote ) or other property; especially: the offense committed by an official ( The Massachusetts GOP ) engaging in such practice

I think what some people don't realize is that the Revolution is moving along just fine . This will all Climax in Tampa in August , it will be Historic !

private parties

Yet what happens when federal reources are accepted as in aid for instance?

donvino

Hopefully this is legally accurate

If so, this could be easier than expected

“Governments never learn. Only people learn.”
― Milton Friedman

It's not, terms need to be

It's not, terms need to be defined under the same statutes that regulate them. When a term is not defined, as Election is NOT defined in 42 USC 1971, the "common and ordinary" meaning of the term should be applied. (Construction of a criminal penalty provision requires exercise of plenary review, United States v. Hall, 972 F.2d 67, 69 (4th Cir.1992), and "must begin with the language of the statute," United States v. Sheek, 990 F.2d 150, 152 (4th Cir.1993). Absent ambiguity, a "court should not look beyond that language." Id. at 152-53; cf. United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 580, 101 S.Ct. 2524, 2527, 69 L.Ed.2d 246 (1981) (noting that court must accord words of statute their common and ordinary meaning unless ambiguous). If ambiguity is found in the statute, resort to the legislative history is proper. Cf. Sheek, 990 F.2d at 152 (noting that "court should not look beyond" language of statute "unless there is ambiguity").

However as shown in my post below, the term VOTE or VOTING is defined in 42 USC 1971 and 1973L(which are 2 separate statutes, however the term vote or voting in both statutes is defined almost identically) and we have found case law pertaining to 42 USC 1973 that basically backs up the argument that in order for a vote to be effective delegates to a convention must be permitted(Some delegates that were chosen were not permitted at a Democratic National Convention, and so a law suit was filed alleging discrimination because the delegates were not seated.) It was found in this case that the "vote" was not effective, so that seems to lend some traction for 42 USC 1971 as we can claim our "vote" is not effective as 42 USC 1971 uses the same definition of "vote".

http://www.facebook.com/RonPaulExploding - RON PAUL IS EXPLODING!

Unknown correlation?

So would you say these laws do not correlate with each other?

Correct, definitions in

Correct, definitions in statutes only apply to that particular subchapter/section. Title 2 USC has nothing to do with Title 42 USC, Chapter 20, Subchapter I.

I'll give you an example where a term in the same TITLE can have DIFFERENT meanings in different subchapters:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/30102

49 USC § 30102

(6) “motor vehicle” means a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

Here, for the purposes of 49 USC, Chapter 301, Subchapter I, the term "motor vehicle" means virtually any vehicle.

However;

In 49 USC, Chapter 143, "motor vehicle" only means a truck or tractor or a vehicle carrying a trailer/semitrailer of a rated capacity of at least 10,000 lbs. Because Chapter 143 deals with trucks/commercial vehicles only and not regular motor vehicles.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/14301
49 USC § 14301
(a) Definitions.— In this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) Motor vehicle.— The term “motor vehicle” means a truck of rated capacity (gross vehicle weight) of at least 10,000 pounds, a highway tractor of rated capacity (gross combination weight) of at least 10,000 pounds, a property-carrying trailer or semitrailer with at least one load-carrying axle of at least 10,000 pounds, or a motor bus with a seating capacity of at least 10 individuals.

As you can see a term can mean one thing for one set of statutes, while meaning completely something else for another set of statutes. 11 CFR 101 and 2 USC 431's definition only applies to the statutes found in title 2 USC, Chapter 14, subchapter I.

http://www.facebook.com/RonPaulExploding - RON PAUL IS EXPLODING!

Interesting...

Great insight! But I still do not see how these laws could not be effectively correlated in court. But I guess that's just me.

Because the term "election"

Because the term "election" is not defined in 42 USC Chapter 20, Subchapter I. However, the term "vote" is defined, and that's where you may have some credibility for a case. I'm not an attorney though, just pointing out what I've found.

http://www.facebook.com/RonPaulExploding - RON PAUL IS EXPLODING!

Here's my logic.

Here's my logic. Please explain how you can dismiss it, because I cannot seem to see a way around it.

Under 11 CFR 100.2, a national convention is clearly defined as a federal election. No?

So in theory, a clearly defined federal election would have to abide by federal voting laws, and must uphold federal voting rights. No?

42 USC 1971 - Sec. 1971. Voting rights, clearly defines federal voting rights for voters voting for different federal office positions, including "any candidate for the office of President".

At a national convention, delegates are voting for, "any candidate for the office of President".

I just don't see why the term election would have to be clearly defined in a federal voting rights law, because under that federal law, one would obviously be taking part in a federal election, "any candidate for the office of President".