Comment: Major Confusion with Rule 16

(See in situ)


Major Confusion with Rule 16

...so what does rule 16 contain? When the changes to “The Rules of the Republican Party” were brought to an aye/nay vote on the Tampa convention floor, did the changes include the ability of national presidential candidates to disapprove and remove properly elected delegates?

After seeing Ben Swann's analysis of rule 16 on August 30th :
link1

And, after seeing Blackwell stating that Ben Ginsburg's original amendment to The Rules of the Republican Party that included "the ability of national presidential candidates to disapprove and remove properly elected delegates" was rejected (at 9:10 and 10:42) in the thread video

And, after hearing the Minnesota delegate's comment in the "RNC Sham 2012" video (at 3:00) :
link2

And, after seeing (what I think are) The Rules of the Republican Party for 2012 (adopted after the RNC in Tampa this year) :
link3

I can’t figure out what amendments were actually made. The text of rule 16 that Ben Swann uses is different from that of the rules in the above pdf…so, I don't think that national presidential candidates alone will be able to unseat their delegates in 2016. I think Swann made a mistake and was actually referring to Ben Ginsburg's original amendment to rule 16, which was shot down in a "compromise" with Texas and Ron Paul delegates. Here are a few online articles that refer to that "compromise":

link4

link5

Since the convention, I had thought that Ginsburg and the party had rammed the original amendment (to grant national candidates delegate veto powers) through anyway and that they had betrayed the compromise they made with the delegates, but the actual text in my link3 pdf above and Blackwell’s statements now make me think otherwise.

Feel free to reuse any resources/ideas that I post on the DailyPaul on other networking sites.