And yet there are machinations going on in every caucus state, and in hidden delegate naming processes, backroom deals, even the legality of outright BUYING delegates, and all for what, precisely? To thwart the overtly expressed will of the people, because, well, "the GOP is not a democracy", and "the people's votes are just opinions".

The usual argument is that the people may act as a mob and there need to be checks and balances. Trump's supporters haven't been a mob, though. They've followed the rules and went out to vote. And they voted for him, massively so.

To find that there are deeper and deeper rules, ever more complex, arcane and hidden, by which the people's votes can be utterly neutralized and ignored, and some guy who didn't even run can be foisted on the party "because the party isn't a democracy", simply begs the question: maybe the party needs to be MORE of a democracy, because the oligarchic republican model of party governance is sure showing the limitations of a process that IGNORES the will of the people in favor of anti-majoritarian tricks and procedures.

Right now, Trump and the primaries and voters are the democratic argument, while Cruz and the delegate games and deeply arcane rules that amount to utterly ignoring the votes of the people are the "republican" argument. And the republican argument is being made to look really, REALLY awful by what the Republicans are doing with it.

People look at the GOP, see what is happening, and see a serious deficit of democracy there. To hear that same arguments made for Republican-style backroom deals at the level of the nation as a whole really weakens that argument.

"Barnett tells the fascinating story of how this conflict arose shortly after the Revolution, leading to the adoption of a new and innovative republican constitution. ------ Yet soon after, progressive academics and activists urged the courts to remake it into a democratic constitution by ignoring key passages of its text. And eventually the courts complied."

One way the 'courts have complied' is by buying into the democratic concept that political parties can make up their own rules for how candidates for elections are to be chosen. As you say, the result is: ---

-- there are machinations going on in every caucus state, and in hidden delegate naming processes, backroom deals, even the legality of outright BUYING delegates, and all for what, precisely? To thwart the overtly expressed will of the people, because, well, "the GOP is not a democracy", and "the people's votes are just opinions.

I think we are long overdue to rein in party political powers in the choosing of candidates for office. -- Certainly, this might require a constitutional amendment, but this election cycle shows a clear need for reform.

Your thoughts?

The party Establishment made war on Trump and lost. Trump is going to take over the party and rewrite the rules.

Then I think Trump will win the election. I think the combination of his popularity, his reasonableness on stupid hot button issues and his refusal to be stampeded by political correctness, along with his willingness to hit the bitch right in the face with her criminality, will result in Trump's victory in the general election.

And I think that the defeat of Hillary, an obviously unqualified candidate who was foisted upon the party because of superdelegate power, will result in pressure within the Democrat Party to change. And the sweeping democratic changes of the Republican Party will cause the Democrats embarrassment, and cause them to become more democratic and transparent in their primaries as well.

This election is a donnybrook for the Eastablishments of both parties. I think they're all going to end up utterly disgraced, and the Bernie movement in the Democrat Party, and Trump in the Republican, will drive both parties towards reforms in the direction of fairness and transparency, and that will be good for everybody.

This election is a donnybrook for the Eastablishments of both parties. I think they're all going to end up utterly disgraced, and the Bernie movement in the Democrat Party, and Trump in the Republican, will drive both parties towards reforms in the direction of fairness and transparency, and that will be good for everybody.

I think we are long overdue to rein in party political powers in the choosing of candidates for office, -- our 'courts have complied' by buying into the dubious 'democratic' concept that political parties can make up their own rules for how candidates for elections are to be chosen.

This must stop, -- And candidates chosen in a constitutionally compatible fashion. --

-- Certainly, this might require a constitutional amendment, but this election cycle shows a clear need for reform.

Do you (or anyone?) have any thoughts on this specific problem?

And on the right, every effort is being made to stop Trump.

I think that Trump's win and Hillary's loss will result in internal reorganization in a democratic direction in both parties.

This must stop, -- And candidates chosen in a constitutionally compatible fashion. --

-- Certainly, this might require a constitutional amendment, but this election cycle shows a clear need for reform.

Do you (or anyone?) have any thoughts on this specific problem?

My specific thoughts are what I said before.

Needless to say, I'm disappointed. I thought you were a contender..

This must stop, -- And candidates chosen in a constitutionally compatible fashion. --

-- Certainly, this might require a constitutional amendment, but this election cycle shows a clear need for reform.

Do you (or anyone?) have any thoughts on this specific problem?

There is no constitutionally compatible fashion laid out in the Constitution. Certainly the Constitution doesn't mandate that the majority of voters choose POTUS. The Electoral College where the person who gets the most votes may not be the winner is a perfect example of that (remember Bush v. Gore?).

There is nothing dubious about political parties making their own rules for how candidates for elections are to be chosen as long as those rules do not violate the Constitution. The only requirement for national office in the Constitution has to do with citizenship and age.

You sound just like a DRat such as Vicomte13 who wants the Constitution to be interpreted based on the political winds de jure or license to make up stuff and claim it to be constituiontal.

Why don't you give it a rest?

Because I'm winning. My side is winning. We're taking the country.

And you're losing. Your side is losing. You're losing the country.

You keep calling me a Democrat, which I am not.

And I keep on antagonizing you, rubbing your face in your defeat, in how much you have lost, because I can.

You antagonize me with a stupid, false accusation, and I keep antagonizing you with true images of the way the country is changing and slipping away with you.

The REASON it is changing and slipping away from you and your type is because when you did hold power and were in the ascendance, back in the age of Reagan, you blew it. You lost power because your ideas did not work. They failed. The economy buckled, and the greed of your leaders left you behind.

But you're still lashing out at the people whom your leaders - who are really the man who screwed you - told you were your enemies, and you're still unable to discern anything. You bought into a political cult, it failed you, but you're still clinging bitterly to it. Its leaders transferred to their sleek yachts and sped away. You're left behind in the wreckage, but you're still blaming others.

Trump has surged forth to win because right-leaning people have rejected your philosoiphy of what it is to be on the right. They are embracing a different one, a better one, the one that made us great in the 19th Century, as opposed to the one that squandered our grreatness in the late 20th.

That's why I don't give it a rest, and won't give it a rest: because YOU don't. You lost because your grand ideas were bad, but you didn't learn a damned thing from their collapse, and you're still hurling insults at the people your former leaders - who left you stranded - told you were your enemies. You hate the wrong people, and you're too stubborn to realize it.

The Republican party with their insider machinations regarding Trump is exposed for the sleazy corrupt shithole it always was. Trump looks like he's going to win it anyway, very much against the will of the partisans, very much because that's the will of people like me.

We are fighting you for command. Once we take command, we are going to strip away the rules that let your leaders do what they tried to do to Trump. Things will be more transparent, clean and fair. The nominee will be the one for who people voted. And the elements in power right now who resist that will be flushed out of power and replaced by people with a better attitude.

Give it a rest? Sure. Once my side has conquered yours and rewritten the rules. Then I will give it a rest, because it's not kind to keep beating on the vanquished.

You're not going to stop calling me a Democrat. I'm not going to stop going after the corruption and rot in the Republican party.

Why don't you give it a rest?

Because I'm winning. My side is winning. We're taking the country

Because you are cheating in a corrupt system that allows Trump to have more delegates than his proportion of votes. What a fraud!! The RNC should be assumed to allow this to happen. Trump is steal delegates that he hasn't earned. Shame on Trump, shame on Reince Priebus, shame on the RNC.

Because you are cheating in a corrupt system

The system is corrupt. There is no "cheating" in a rigged casino. You do what you need to do to win. Then, once you're in command, you change the rules to prevent that sort of thing in the future.

First you have to win.

This must stop, -- And candidates chosen in a constitutionally compatible fashion. --

-- Certainly, this might require a constitutional amendment, but this election cycle shows a clear need for reform.

Do you (or anyone?) have any thoughts on this specific problem

There is no constitutionally compatible fashion laid out in the Constitution.

Exactly,-- that's why I said a solution will require an Amendment.

Certainly the Constitution doesn't mandate that the majority of voters choose POTUS. The Electoral College where the person who gets the most votes may not be the winner is a perfect example of that (remember Bush v. Gore?).

We all remember, and that's why both republicans and other parties are calling for reform..

There is nothing dubious about political parties making their own rules for how candidates for elections are to be chosen as long as those rules do not violate the Constitution.

And an Amendment stopping 'rule by political parties' on how candidates qualify for elections would give 'we the people' a true choice in ALL elections, local , state, and fed..

The only requirement for national office in the Constitution has to do with citizenship and age.

That would remain. -- An Amendment would just deny political parties the power to choose all the candidates.

You sound just like a DRat such as Vicomte13 who wants the Constitution to be interpreted based on the political winds de jure or license to make up stuff and claim it to be constituiontal.

No, I'm calling for a constitutional amendment to correct the valid problem of too much power in the hands of party hacks.

You sound like one of the hacks.

You sound like one of the hacks.

Yeah, that's why and changed my registration to Independent because I am a party hack. Riiiiight...........

The system is corrupt. There is no "cheating" in a rigged casino. You do what you need to do to win. Then, once you're in command, you change the rules to prevent that sort of thing in the future.

First you have to win.

So said every wannabe King and tinhorn tyrant in history. You and your DRat tribe are straight down the fairway on this.

The book is available from Amazon at:

http://www.amazon.com/Our-Republican-Constitution-Securing-Sovereignty/dp/0062412280

The four quotes by Levin, Kristol, Balkin and Lee apear on the back of the dust cover.

The other comments appear on the inside of the dust cover.

There is one statement on the dust cover which is confusing or just wrong.

The democrats view We the People collectively and think popular sovereignty resides in the people as a group. ...

The republicans view We the People as a collection of individuals.

I should think a "collection of individuals" would be a group, not exactly what Barnett conveyed in the book, see pp. 18-19. I include the prefacing paragraph to clarify Barnett's usage of the terms "Democratic Constitution" and "Republican Constitution."

In this book, I call these divergent visions the "Democratic Constitution" and the "Republican Constitution," but I don't intend these labels to be partisan. There are political conservatives who hew to some aspects of the Democratic Constitution and some progressives who adopt aspects of the Republican one. Many people flit between conceptions depending on which happens to conform to the results they like. I chose the terms democratic and republican constitutions because both terms have deep roots in our constitutional history, and neither is pejorative. I dislike arguments by labels and both these labels today have a positive connotation.

At its core, this debate is about the meaning of the first three words of the Constitution: "We the People." Those who favor the Democratic Constitution view We the People as a group, as a body, as a collective entity. Those who favor the Republican Constitution view We the People as individuals. This choice of visions has enormous real-world consequences.

Barnett asserts, "the Republican Constitution view We the People as individuals," as distinguished by the dust cover assertion of "The republicans view We the People as a collection of individuals."

The term is susceptible of yet another description, that it referred to the people who formed each of the political communities called States, which were the members of the Union. It was not one consolidated group, but a set of groups, each forming a constituent State. Sovereignty was found in the individual, but it was exercised only by individuals acting as a political community known as a State.

It does not appear that Barnett in Our Republican Constitution, or in his legal textbook, Constitutional Law, Cases in Context, (1,348 pp.), discusses primary elections and the law.

Below, I present a couple of U.S. Supreme Court opinions which are on topic and may be of interest. Freedom of association, to associate or not associate, appears to be an important and relevant constitutional provision.

http://loc.heinonline.org/loc/Page?handle=hein.usreports/usrep419&id=609#609

Cousins v. Wigoda, 419 U.S. 477 (1975)

Syllabus

COUSINS ET AL. v. WIGODA ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT

No. 73-1106. Argued November 11, 1974-

Decided January 15, 1975

Petitioners (Cousins delegates) challenged before the National Democratic Party Credentials Committee, as violative of Party guidelines, the seating of respondents (Wigoda delegates) who had been elected from Chicago districts at the March 1972 Illinois primary election as delegates to the 1972 Democratic National Convention to be held in July 1972. The Committee decided that the Cousins delegates should be seated instead of the Wigoda delegates, who, on July 8, 1972, two days before the Convention opened, were granted an injunction by the Illinois Circuit Court enjoining the Cousins group from acting as delegates at the Convention. The Cousins delegates nevertheless were seated by the Convention and functioned as delegates. The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed, holding that "[t]he right to sit as a delegate representing Illinois at the national nominating convention is governed exclusively by the Illinois Election Code," and that the "interest of the State in protecting the effective right to participate in primaries is superior to whatever other interests the party itself might wish to protect." In another suit, which had been brought in the District Court for the District of Columbia, one Keane, a Wigoda delegate, challenged the constitutionality of the Party guidelines allegedly violated in the Wigoda delegates' selection. The District Court sustained one of the challenged guidelines and dismissed Keane's suit while denying the Party's counterclaim for an injunction against the Wigoda delegates' proceeding with the state-court action. The Court of Appeals on July 5 affirmed the dismissal but granted the counterclaim. This Court in a per curiam opinion stayed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and later, having granted Keane's petition for certiorari, vacated the Court of Appeals' judgment and remanded for a determination of mootness. The Court of Appeals thereafter held the case moot insofar as it involved the seating of delegates at the completed Convention and affirmed dismissal of the Keane suit. In addition to their arguments on the merits, petitioners contend that language in the per curiam established the Convention's right to decide the Chicago credentials contest, and that this Court's action in staying, but not vacating, the Court of Appeals' judgment left that judgment as a res judicata bar to the injunction. Held:

1. This Court's per curiam unqualifiedly suspended the operative effects of the Court of Appeals judgment without resolving the merits of the controversy; and petitioners' res judicata contention is not open for consideration, not having been pleaded and proved in the Circuit Court as required by state law. Pp. 485-487.

2. In the selection of candidates for national office a National Party Convention serves the pervasive national interest, which is paramount to any interest of a State in protecting the integrity of its electoral process, and the Circuit Court erred in issuing an injunction that abridged the associational rights of petitioners and their Party and the Party's right to determine the composition of its National Convention in accordance with Party standards. Pp. 487-491.

14 Ill. App. 3d 460, 302 N. E. 2d 614, reversed.

BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which DOUGLAS, WHITE, MARSHALL, and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined. REHNQUIST, J., filed an opinion concurring in the result, in which BURGER, C. J., and STEWART, J., joined, post, p. 491. POWELL, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, post, p. 496.

[...]

- - - - - - - - - -

http://loc.heinonline.org/loc/Page?handle=hein.usreports/usrep450&id=185#185

Democratic Party of United States v. Wisconsin, 450 U.S. 107 (1981)

Syllabus

DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF UNITED STATES ET AL. V. WISCONSIN EX REL. LA FOLLETTE ET AL.

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

No. 79-1631. Argued December 8, 1980-Decided February 25, 1981 Rules of the Democratic Party of the United States (National Party) provide that only those who are willing to affiliate publicly with the Democratic Party may participate in the process of selecting delegates to the Party's National Convention. Wisconsin election laws allow voters to participate in its Democratic Presidential candidate preference primary without regard to party affiliation and without requiring a public declaration of party preference. While the Wisconsin delegates to the National Convention are chosen separately, after the primary, at caucuses of persons who have stated their affiliation with the Democratic Party, those delegates are bound to vote at the Convention in accord with the results of the open primary election. Thus, while Wisconsin's open Presidential preference primary does not itself violate the National Party's rules, the State's mandate that primary results shall determine the allocation of votes cast by the State's delegates at the National Convention does. When the National Party indicated that Wisconsin delegates would not be seated at the 1980 National Convention because the Wisconsin delegate selection system violated the National Party's rules, an original action was brought in the Wisconsin Supreme Court on behalf of the State, seeking a declaration that such system was constitutional as applied to appellants (the National Party and Democratic National Committee) and that they could not lawfully refuse to seat the Wisconsin delegation. Concluding, inter alia, that the State had not impermissibly impaired the National Party's freedom of political association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the State's delegate selection system was constitutional and binding upon appellants and that they could not refuse to seat delegates chosen in accord with Wisconsin law.

Held: Wisconsin cannot constitutionally compel the National Party to seat a delegation chosen in a way that violates the Party's rules. Cousins v. Wigoda, 419 U. S. 477, controlling. Pp. 120-126.

(a) The National Party and its adherents enjoy a constitutionally protected right of political association under the First Amendment, and this freedom to gather in association for the purpose of advancing shared beliefs is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by any State, and necessarily presupposes the freedom to identify the people who constitute the association and to limit the association to those people only. Here, the members of the National Party, speaking through their rules, chose to define their associational rights by limiting those who could participate in any binding process leading to the selection of delegates to their National Convention. Pp. 120-122.

(b) Wisconsin's asserted compelling interests in preserving the overall integrity of the electoral process, providing secrecy of the ballot, increasing voter participation in primaries, and preventing harassment of voters, go to the conduct of the open Presidential preference primary, not to the imposition of voting requirements upon those who, in a separate process, are eventually selected as delegates. Therefore, such asserted interests do not justify the State's substantial intrusion into the associational freedom of members of the National Party. Pp. 124-126.

93 Wis. 2d 473, 287 N. W. 2d 519, reversed.

STEWART, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C. J., and BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. POWELL, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BLACKMUN and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined, post, p. 126.

[...]

Democratic Party, 450 U.S. 107 (1981) at 110-112:

The election laws of Wisconsin allow non-Democrats including members of other parties and independents—to vote in the Democratic primary without regard to party affiliation and without requiring a public declaration of party preference. The voters in Wisconsin's "open" primary express their choice among Presidential candidates for the Democratic Party's nomination; they do not vote for delegates to the National Convention. Delegates to the National Convention are chosen separately, after the primary, at caucuses of persons who have stated their affiliation with the Party. But these delegates, under Wisconsin law, are bound to vote at the National Convention in accord with the results of the open primary election.

Democratic Party, 450 U.S. 107 (1981) at 109:

1 Rule 2A provides in full:

"Participation in the delegate selection process in primaries or caucuses shall be restricted to Democratic voters only who publicly declare their party preference and have that preference publicly recorded. Documentary evidence of a process which complies with this rule shall accompany all state Delegate Selection Plans upon their submission to the National Party. Such rules, when approved by the Compliance Review Commission and implemented shall constitute adequate provisions within the meaning of Section 9 of the 1972 Democratic National Convention mandate."

Democratic Party, 450 U.S. 107 (1981) at 110:

2 Rule 12B of the Delegate Selection Rules for the 1980 Democratic National Convention provides in part:

"At all stages of the delegates selection process, delegates shall be allocated in a fashion that fairly reflects the expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the primary voters or if there is no binding primary, the convention and caucus participants except that preferences securing less than the applicable percentage of votes cast for the delegates to the National Convention shall not be awarded any delegates."

Rule 12D provides in full:

"For the purpose of fairly reflecting the division of preferences, the nonbinding advisory presidential preference portion of primaries shall not be considered a step in the delegate selection process." (Emphasis added.)

Democratic Party, 450 U.S. 107 (1981) at 121:

The issue is whether the State may compel the National Party to seat a delegation chosen in a way that violates the rules of the Party. And this issue was resolved, we believe, in Cousins v. Wigoda, 419 U. S. 477.

Democratic Party, 450 U.S. 107 (1981) at 124:

IV

We must consider, finally, whether the State has compelling interests that justify the imposition of its will upon the appellants. See Cousins, 419 U. S., at 489. "Neither the right to associate nor the right to participate in political activities is absolute." CSC v. Letter Carriers, 413 U. S. 548, 567. The State asserts a compelling interest in preserving the overall integrity of the electoral process, providing secrecy of the ballot, increasing voter participation in primaries, and preventing harassment of voters. 9 But all those interests go to the conduct of the Presidential preference primary-not to the imposition of voting requirements upon those who, in a separate process, are eventually selected as delegates. 3 Therefore, the interests advanced by the State "' do not justify

The State has a substantial interest in the manner in which its elections are conducted, and the National Party has a substantial interest in the manner in which the delegates to its National Convention are selected. But these interests are not incompatible, and to the limited extent they clash in this case, both interests can be preserved. The National Party rules do not forbid Wisconsin to conduct an open primary. But if Wisconsin does open its primary, it cannot require that Wisconsin delegates to the National Party Convention vote there in accordance with the primary results, if to do so would violate Party rules. Since the Wisconsin Supreme Court has declared that the National Party cannot disqualify delegates who are bound to vote in accordance with the results of the Wisconsin open primary, its judgment is reversed.

To: tpaine It does not appear that Barnett in Our Republican Constitution, or in his legal textbook, Constitutional Law, Cases in Context, (1,348 pp.), discusses primary elections and the law.

Below, I present a couple of U.S. Supreme Court opinions which are on topic and may be of interest. Freedom of association, to associate or not associate, appears to be an important and relevant constitutional provision.

--- "The State has a substantial interest in the manner in which its elections are conducted, and the National Party has a substantial interest in the manner in which the delegates to its National Convention are selected. But these interests are not incompatible, and to the limited extent they clash in this case, both interests can be preserved. The National Party rules do not forbid Wisconsin to conduct an open primary. But if Wisconsin does open its primary, it cannot require that Wisconsin delegates to the National Party Convention vote there in accordance with the primary results, if to do so would violate Party rules. Since the Wisconsin Supreme Court has declared that the National Party cannot disqualify delegates who are bound to vote in accordance with the results of the Wisconsin open primary, its judgment is reversed."

From the above decision, I'd conclude that SCOTUS says that political parties CANNOT disqualify delegates that do not follow party hacks orders..

Correct?

From the above decision, I'd conclude that SCOTUS says that political parties CANNOT disqualify delegates that do not follow party hacks orders..

The opposite, see the Syllabus of Democratic Party. The State cannot enforce a law which infringes upon the National Party's freedom to gather in association.

Held: Wisconsin cannot constitutionally compel the National Party to seat a delegation chosen in a way that violates the Party's rules. Cousins v. Wigoda, 419 U. S. 477, controlling. Pp. 120-126.

(a) The National Party and its adherents enjoy a constitutionally protected right of political association under the First Amendment, and this freedom to gather in association for the purpose of advancing shared beliefs is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by any State, and necessarily presupposes the freedom to identify the people who constitute the association and to limit the association to those people only. Here, the members of the National Party, speaking through their rules, chose to define their associational rights by limiting those who could participate in any binding process leading to the selection of delegates to their National Convention. Pp. 120-122.

(b) Wisconsin's asserted compelling interests in preserving the overall integrity of the electoral process, providing secrecy of the ballot, increasing voter participation in primaries, and preventing harassment of voters, go to the conduct of the open Presidential preference primary, not to the imposition of voting requirements upon those who, in a separate process, are eventually selected as delegates. Therefore, such asserted interests do not justify the State's substantial intrusion into the associational freedom of members of the National Party. Pp. 124-126.

See also the Cousins Syllabus, the precedent upon which the Court relied in Democratic Party.

2. In the selection of candidates for national office a National Party Convention serves the pervasive national interest, which is paramount to any interest of a State in protecting the integrity of its electoral process, and the Circuit Court erred in issuing an injunction that abridged the associational rights of petitioners and their Party and the Party's right to determine the composition of its National Convention in accordance with Party standards. Pp. 487-491.

In #4, you stated,

This must stop, -- And candidates chosen in a constitutionally compatible fashion. --

-- Certainly, this might require a constitutional amendment, but this election cycle shows a clear need for reform.

Do you (or anyone?) have any thoughts on this specific problem?

I believe you may need an Amendment to establish a constitutionally compatible fashion to choose candidates.

See Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law, 2nd Ed., at 1688,

Nearly all of the Constitution's self-executing, and therefore judicially enforceable, guarantees of individual rights shield individuals only from government action.[1] Accordingly, when litigants claim the protection of suc guarantees, courts must first determine whether it is indeed government action—state or federal [2]—that the litigants are challenging.[3]

Footnote [1] offers in part,

1. The Bill of Rights, the first eight amendments to the Constitution, on their face constrain only the condct of the federal government, and the the extent of their incorporation in the fourteenth amendment due process clause, see § 11-2, supra, also limit state governments. Similarly, the prohibitions found in article I, §§ 9 and 10, as well as the guarantees of the fifteenth, nineteenth, twenty-fourth and twenty-sixth amendments, restrain only federal and state government action. The fourteenth amendment due process and equal protection clauses limit only state action. Congress may protect the privileges or immunities of national citizensip by regulating private conduct, see § 5-14, supra, but the fourteenth amendment grants courts the power to protect such rights only from state action.

Footnote [2] clarifies the contextual meaning of "state action."

2. Throughout this chapter, the words "state action" will denote action by any level of governent, from local to national.

A political party is a private organization, not a government entity.

An Amendment could be fashioned to define minimum standards that would govern how political parties select nominees for office and provide for enforcement.

I had not spent any thought on this, but granting more power to the federal government is always fraught with the perils of unintended consequences. If an amendment made holding primaries in each state a party requirement, this could prove to be an insurmountable challenge to third parties. So, I am hesitant to consider empowering the Federal government to regulate the parties.

This must stop, -- And candidates chosen in a constitutionally compatible fashion. --

-- Certainly, this might require a constitutional amendment, but this election cycle shows a clear need for reform.

Do you (or anyone?) have any thoughts on this specific problem?

I believe you may need an Amendment to establish a constitutionally compatible fashion to choose candidates. -- See Laurence H. Tribe,

Thanks for your agreement, -- but asking me to then 'see Tribe', a big govt enabler, is counterproductive..

An Amendment could be fashioned to define minimum standards that would govern how political parties select nominees for office and provide for enforcement. ----- I had not spent any thought on this, but granting more power to the federal government is always fraught with the perils of unintended consequences.

Amendments do not necessarily grant power to government.

If an amendment made holding primaries in each state a party requirement, this could prove to be an insurmountable challenge to third parties. So, I am hesitant to consider empowering the Federal government to regulate the parties.

So would I be, - more than hesitant. Obviously, the Amendment would be very hard to craft in order to protect our freedom to select candidates...

Thanks for your input...

My understanding is that the Constitution was designed to protect the individual from the excesses of government . This talk of finding a more 'democratic' way to select our leaders would make most of the founders gag. Instead they built safeguards into the system in an attempt to counter the excesses of majoritarian populism . That is why we have an electoral college . That is why the States run elections .

When Madison examined the deficiencies of the Confederation before the Constitutional Convention he concluded that the fault lies in the people themselves . In 'Sec 11 Injustice of the laws of States.' He writes :"If the multiplicity and mutability of laws prove a want of wisdom, their injustice betrays a defect still more alarming: more alarming not merely because it is a greater evil in itself, but because it brings more into question the fundamental principle of republican Government, that the majority who rule in such Governments, are the safest Guardians both of public Good and of private rights." Madison wrote that we must be more realistic about popular majorities. The largest factions of special interests can always outvote the people of smaller special interests . But there is no safeguard for the rights of the minority or individuals in that system . The Constitution that was crafted by the founders attempted to address this. "To secure the public goods and private rights against the danger of such a faction ,and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed."Madison Federalist Papers #10