Unbound: The Conscience of a Republican Delegate

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I don't understand how free speech has anything to do with binding a delegate to vote a certain way. Anyone want to explain?

Read the free booklet that is included in the OP.

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Pot Meet Kettle.

Nope. You are the one making personal attacks and directing insults at me.
And you do it over and over at anyone disagreeing with you.
How do you not see this?
If I have directed any personal insults at you, it was not intended.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Read the free booklet that is included in the OP.

I did. It doesn't really make the case that virginias law violates the first amendment.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

Nope. You are the one making personal attacks and directing insults at me.
And you do it over and over at anyone disagreeing with you.
How do you not see this?
If I have directed any personal insults at you, it was not intended.

I didn't think I was making personal attacks. Shoot me a list. Maybe you just have a Dorito on your shoulder.

[Pressing-On]

How This Colorado GOP Delegate Plans to Dump Trump
http://finance.yahoo.com/video/color...231122104.html

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I did. It doesn't really make the case that virginias law violates the first amendment.

The short answer is that the RNC is a private organization. They have a right to choose their representatives. The government cannot interfere, forcing a party as to how they select their leaders. It would be a violation of free speech and association.

Case precedent - Cousins v. Wigoda (1975):https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/419/477/ - “The States themselves have no constitutionally mandated role in the great task of the . . . selection of Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates.”

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

The short answer is that the RNC is a private organization. They have a right to choose their representatives. The government cannot interfere, forcing a party as to how they select their leaders. It would be a violation of free speech and association.

Case precedent - Cousins v. Wigoda (1975):https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/419/477/ - “The States themselves have no constitutionally mandated role in the great task of the . . . selection of Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates.”

Government cannot force a private party how to choose their leaders. I agree. So as long as the state law simply put punishments to not following the party's processes then it should be legal right? Isn't that what the delegate binding laws actually did?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Government cannot force a private party how to choose their leaders. I agree. So as long as the state law simply put punishments to not following the party's processes then it should be legal right? Isn't that what the delegate binding laws actually did?

State and Federal are the same thing. They are both the government. It's unconstitutional.

They would have to have some compelling government interest. The case I cited says that they do not have a valid interest, not even as much as a compelling interest.

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I didn't think I was making personal attacks. Shoot me a list. Maybe you just have a Dorito on your shoulder.

Could be! But it might be a Tostito...
Lol.

[Ferd]

regardless of what some book might say.

I will never forgive any republican of power that seeks to undo the will of the people. the republicans voted. it wasn't close... my guy did not win. my second choice did not win. my third choice did not win.


but we have a process. its a worthy one. Trump is the presumptive nominee. period.