Comment: This Means Massachusetts Must be Established as a Ron Paul Win

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: It's Exhibit A (see in situ)

This Means Massachusetts Must be Established as a Ron Paul Win

This looks to me that Massachusetts, and possibly other states, Ron Paul has won because:

1.) the Delegates can only be those that have been Duly "elected" not appointed.

2.) the elected Delegates are the only ones that can nominate the candidate for their state.

This looks to be the process and is safeguarded by this:

"....During the debate on the "Unit Rule" amendment, there was some concern raised that the new language would be interpreted by some to prohibit the individual states from adopting rules that would bind or allocate delegates to specific candidates.

The proponents, however, gave assurances that >>>>>>>it was not their intention to effect any "legal or "moral" obligation of the delegates....."

When the state of Massachusetts stepped in to require delegates to vote against their conscience or "sign a affidavit" to vote a certain way or they could not be a delegate , they violated their own rules.

The committees circumvented the process by "dictating" the vote and or changing the possess, that could not be changed;

Thus keeping the duly elected delegates from establishing the candidate by that state; or later voting for the candidate of their conscience.

This is how I read it.

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.