[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Freepers Still Love war Parody ... Jump / Trump --- van Halen jump "The Democrat Meltdown Continues" "Yes, We Need Deportations Without Due Process" "Trump's Tariff Play Smart, Strategic, Working" "Leftists Make Desperate Attempt to Discredit Photo of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 Tattoos. Here Are Receipts" "Trump Administration Freezes $2 Billion After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands"on After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands "Doctors Committing Insurance Fraud to Conceal Trans Procedures, Texas Children’s Whistleblower Testifies" "Left Using '8647' Symbol for Violence Against Trump, Musk" KawasakiÂ’s new rideable robohorse is straight out of a sci-fi novel "Trade should work for America, not rule it" "The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race – What’s at Risk for the GOP" "How Trump caught big-government fans in their own trap" ‘Are You Prepared for Violence?’ Greek Orthodox Archbishop gives President Trump a Cross, tells him "Make America Invincible" "Trump signs executive order eliminating the Department of Education!!!" "If AOC Is the Democratic Future, the Party Is Even Worse Off Than We Think" "Ending EPA Overreach" Closest Look Ever at How Pyramids Were Built Moment the SpaceX crew Meets Stranded ISS Crew The Exodus Pharaoh EXPLAINED! Did the Israelites Really Cross the Red Sea? Stunning Evidence of the Location of Red Sea Crossing! Are we experiencing a Triumph of Orthodoxy? Judge Napolitano with Konstantin Malofeev (Moscow, Russia) "Trump Administration Cancels Most USAID Programs, Folds Others into State Department" Introducing Manus: The General AI Agent "Chinese Spies in Our Military? Straight to Jail" Any suggestion that the USA and NATO are "Helping" or have ever helped Ukraine needs to be shot down instantly "Real problem with the Palestinians: Nobody wants them" ACDC & The Rolling Stones - Rock Me Baby Magnus Carlsen gives a London System lesson! "The Democrats Are Suffering Through a Drought of Generational Talent" 7 Tactics Of The Enemy To Weaken Your Faith Strange And Biblical Events Are Happening Every year ... BusiesT casino gambling day -- in Las Vegas Trump’s DOGE Plan Is Legally Untouchable—Elon Musk Holds the Scalpel Palestinians: What do you think of the Trump plan for Gaza? What Happens Inside Gaza’s Secret Tunnels? | Unpacked Hamas Torture Bodycam Footage: "These Monsters Filmed it All" | IDF Warfighter Doron Keidar, Ep. 225 EXPOSED: The Dark Truth About the Hostages in Gaza New Task Force Ready To Expose Dark Secrets Egypt Amasses Forces on Israel’s Southern Border | World War 3 About to Start? "Trump wants to dismantle the Education Department. Here’s how it would work" test "Federal Workers Concerned That Returning To Office Will Interfere With Them Not Working" "Yes, the Democrats Have a Governing Problem – They Blame America First, Then Govern Accordingly" "Trump and His New Frenemies, Abroad and at Home" "The Left’s Sin Is of Omission and Lost Opportunity" "How Trump’s team will break down the woke bureaucracy" Pete Hegseth will be confirmed in a few minutes Status: Not Logged In; Sign In politics and politicians See other politics and politicians Articles Title: One of Trump’s Latest Statements Could Put His South Carolina Primary Win in ‘Jeopardy’ Source: Independent Journal Review URL Source: https://www.ijreview.com/2016/03/57 ... -break-his-rnc-loyalty-pledge/ Published: Mar 31, 2016 Author: Justin Green Post Date: 2016-03-31 17:34:36 by Tooconservative Keywords: None Views: 9091 Comments: 47 Donald Trump raised eyebrows the other evening when he said he will no longer be upholding the GOP loyalty pledge, which he signed earlier this year: Now a potential consequence is going public. The state of South Carolina, which has yet to have its state convention, could potentially “unbind” Trump’s 50 delegates, which he won when he swept the state in February. TIME magazine’s Zeke Miller reported on Thursday: The Palmetto State was one of several that required candidates to pledge their loyalty to the party’s eventual nominee in order to secure a slot on the primary ballot. Though Trump won all of the state’s delegates in the Feb. 20 primary, anti-Trump forces are plotting to contest their binding to Trump because of his threat on the pledge Tuesday. The loyalty pledge is nothing new in South Carolina, where it has been required for decades… Matt Moore, the chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party, said: “Breaking South Carolina’s presidential primary ballot pledge raises some unanswered legal questions that no one person can answer,” he told TIME. “However, a court or national convention Committee on Contests could resolve them. It could put delegates in jeopardy.” But on Twitter, Moore added: Regarding delegate questions today: to be clear, no one is seeking to unbind ANY of South Carolina's national delegates. — Matt Moore (@MattMooreSC) March 31, 2016 South Carolina holds its state convention in April, and if it proceeds to strip Trump’s delegates, it would surely spark uproar among the candidate’s supporters, in addition to being the latest example of the Trump campaign fumbling delegates he should have won: Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 19. #4. To: TooConservative (#0) “Breaking South Carolina’s presidential primary ballot pledge raises some unanswered legal questions that no one person can answer,” So the pledge Trump signed is legally binding? So it's not a pledge but a civil contract? Is that the message here? How many other R candidates do they force to sign this contract before letting them run for president? Is Trump the only one, because he's an evil guy? Pinguinite  posted on  2016-03-31   20:02:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #5. To: Pinguinite (#4) How many other R candidates do they force to sign this contract before letting them run for president? Is Trump the only one, because he's an evil guy? All of them. You can't appear on the SC ballot otherwise in my understanding. They have to sign the pledge when they apply to appear on the ballot. All the states have their own rules and laws about these things. Candidates and GOP delegates are bound legally. This is what is meant by "bound delegates". The laws of these states generally require them to do certain things, among them is a common requirement to vote for the candidate to whom they were awarded in the primary/caucus/state convention on the first ballot at the national convention. When Trump broke his pledge repeatedly, it lets all 50 SC delegates off the hook. You know, South Carolina whose governor endorsed Cruz a while back and where Lindsey Graham (who hates Trump even more than Rand Paul) is the party master. Graham is quite capable of doing this. He'd love it. And Kasich and Cruz also saying that they won't support Trump? Well, that doesn't matter because Trump had all 50 SC delegates in his back pocket, bound by law to vote for him on the first convention ballot. Now they are arguably free to vote for anyone they want, even if it is Cruz who is also saying he won't support Trump as the nominee. So Cruz and Kasich are relatively free to say they won't support Trump (and even egg Trump on to say the same thing) but Trump is a fool (and poorly advised) to say the same thing in public. The only penalty for them is if they happen to have delegates in other states where they signed a candidate loyalty oath like they had to in SC. But maybe those other states might choose not to pursue any action against them for the same infraction, eh? To give you some idea of how much these state laws vary, perhaps you might want to look through this piece. Richmond.com, 2012: Va. GOP to require loyalty oath in presidential primary And that wasn't a loyalty oath for the candidates. The VA GOP in 2012 required voters to sign a pledge that they would vote for the GOP nominee in the fall as a precondition to voting in the primary. These are not just the rules of some private club. The state parties can and do impose all sorts of laws and rules with the force of state law. And the other states and the courts are bound to respect their election laws. It is part of the fabric of the election system. I know that both Virginia and North Carolina were both pressing in the fall to force all the candidates to sign a loyalty oath too, just like South Carolina has had for decades. I'm not sure whether they passed it in the state GOP party process or not. Tooconservative  posted on  2016-03-31   20:43:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #6. To: TooConservative (#5) When Trump broke his pledge repeatedly, it lets all 50 SC delegates off the hook. How can you break a pledge when there isn't even a nominee yet. You establishment pricks are getting desperate. You voted for Romney. Romney is far to the left of Trump. That is the truth tooliberal. A K A Stone  posted on  2016-03-31   20:45:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #7. To: A K A Stone (#6) How can you break a pledge when there isn't even a nominee yet. You really have a problem with logic and facts. You can whine about here at LF all you want. But the laws of these states that bind delegates are what they are, even if you jam your fingers in your ears and refuse to hear it. What exactly did you think they meant when they used the words "bound delegate"? They are legally bound to vote for the candidate they're pledged to on the first ballot. And that is how the nominee is selected. If you're too dumb to get that, stop asking me questions about it. It isn't that complicated. Tooconservative  posted on  2016-03-31   21:47:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #8. To: TooConservative (#7) Stone's question is on point, and it's also one I have. It's not possible to lend or deny support to the nominee until there's a nominee. Would a public verbal statement legally nullify any written contract? And I'm not convinced of the legalities of what you claim re: "pledges", which are not pledges at all but contracts if what you say is correct. Pinguinite  posted on  2016-03-31   22:17:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #12. To: Pinguinite, A K A Stone, TooConservative (#8) It's not possible to lend or deny support to the nominee until there's a nominee. Would a public verbal statement legally nullify any written contract? It is possible, but I am in no way asserting such was done by Trump. It must be a rather unequivocal statement of repudiation. Arthur L. Corbin, Corbin on Contracts, One Volume Edition, West Publishing Co., 1952, § 959, Anticipatory Breach of Contract, pp. 940-41, extracts: It is now the generally prevailing rule in both England and the United States that a definite and unconditional repudiation of the contract by a party thereto, communicated to the other, is a breach of contract, creating an immediate right of action and other legal effects, even though it takes place long before the time prescribed for the promised performance ad before conditions specified in the promise have ever occurred. [...] An anticipatory breach of contract by a promisor is a repudiation of is contractual duty before the time fixed in the contract for is performance has arrived. Such a repudiation may be made either by word or by act. If the promissor make a definite statement to the promissee that he either will not or can not perform his contract, this is a repudiation and will operate as an anticipatory breach unless the promisor had some justifying cause for his statement. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. Anticipatory breach of contract. The assertion by a party of a contract that he or she will not perform a future obligation as required by the contract. Such occurs when a party to an executory contract manifests a definite and unequivocal intent prior to time fixed in contract when that time arrives, and in such a Case the other party may treat the contract as ended. Leazzo v. Dunham, 95 Ill.App.3d 847; 51 Ill.Dec. 437, 440; 420 N.E. 2d 851, 854. nolu chan  posted on  2016-03-31   23:40:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #13. To: nolu chan, Pinguinite, A K A Stone, TooConservative (#12) It seems to me that neither Cruz or Kasich would legally be entitled to any of SC's delegates as they both indicated that they would not fulfill the party nominee support legal requirement. Then what do the SC delegates do at the convention if they are legally required not to vote for Trump or Cruz or Kasich? SOSO  posted on  2016-03-31   23:52:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #16. To: SOSO (#13) It seems to me that neither Cruz or Kasich would legally be entitled to any of SC's delegates as they both indicated that they would not fulfill the party nominee support legal requirement. As I pointed out earlier, neither Cruz nor Kasish had any SC delegates which were bound to vote for them on the first convention ballot. I really don't see why you guys find this so difficult. Only Trump can lose these delegates so therefore only his opponents can benefit from it. As long as the 50 SC delegates don't have to vote for Trump on the first ballot, it may not even matter who they do vote for, as long as they aren't voting for Trump. Tooconservative  posted on  2016-04-01   0:01:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #19. To: TooConservative (#16) Only Trump can lose these delegates so therefore only his opponents can benefit from it. Only the ones that met the legal requirement of being on record that they will support the eventual nominee. As things stand it is very questionable that either Cruz or Kasich met the requirement and therefore would not be entitled to any SC delegates, whether earned or otherwise. So for whom would the SC delegates vote if not Trump, Cruz or Kasich? SOSO  posted on  2016-04-01   0:11:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 19. #25. To: SOSO (#19) Only the ones that met the legal requirement of being on record that they will support the eventual nominee. Not exactly, in my understanding. At the convention, the delegates are bound to vote for the candidate they are bound to as a result of the state vote, the district conventions and the state conventions. And each state delegate has alternates who, if they replace the original delegate, are legally bound to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged on the first convention ballot. And every state can have different rules/laws, within certain limits. The RNC does have some control with its rules which are limited by the power of the RNC to control the seating of a state's delegates. For instance, we saw this in 2008 and 2012 where Florida moved up its election and conducted a winner-take-all primary against the RNC rules. As a result, Florida GOP was penalized half of its delegates for breaking the RNC rules. As it worked out, McStain and Romney both had enough delegates to spare that it made no difference so the RNC just went ahead and seated all the Florida delegates and let them cast votes. But the RNC didn't have to do that. As a result of Florida's rulebreaking in 2008 and 2012, their primary got demoted much later in the primary schedule considerably and they were forced to be a proportional state, not a winner-take-all state, in 2016. Since the SC delegates are bound to Trump (and only Trump) on the first convention ballot, then if Trump abrogates his lawful SC loyalty pledge, they can become unbound, either as a result of court hearings in a SC state court or as a result of a procedure in a convention rules committee. There is talk of delegates filing against Trump in a SC court. In essence, this would be a case of Trump abandoning his solemn written pledge to support the GOP nominee and therefore they would no longer support a candidate who broke his word to the voters of SC. South Carolina has had these laws for the last fifty years or so. But if they are no longer bound to Trump, that can only benefit Cruz or Kasich on the first convention ballot. And that opens the door for all the convention delegates to become unbound delegates on the second (and later) convention ballot so that they can nominate literally anyone. Not necessarily even a person who ran for the nomination to begin with. Again, this is how Wendell Wilkie became the 1940 nominee. He was a pro-war Dem in the fall of 1939. He didn't run for prez in the spring of 1940 at all. Nevertheless, he was selected after the first ballot failed to select any other candidate who actually ran for prez in the 1940 primaries and Wilkie became the GOP's 1940 nominee against FDR. He went on to lose to FDR but then went to work as a diplomat for FDR. And the convention rules haven't changed that much since then. Trump needs to win on the first convention ballot with 1237 votes. Or all bets are off and the convention will show just how independent it can be. I would hate to have to explain to you guys some of the truly perverse things that can happen if a presidential election gets thrown into the House (and/or the VP election into the U.S. Senate). Tooconservative  posted on  2016-04-01 00:36:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   End Trace Mode for Comment # 19. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com