As Discussed on Limbaughs Radio program today....from the Daily
Caller....sourcing a RNC rules committee member, Curly Haugland...Let
sent to RNC...below
http://sgtreport.com/2016/03/rush-limbaugh-watch-out-for-jeb-at-the-convention/
Letter from the RNC, Rules committee
Republican
National
Committee
Curly Haugland
National Committeeman for North Dakota
Box 1473
Bismarck, ND
58502
March 11, 2016
Fellow Republican National Committee Members,
NEWS FLASH: All Republican Delegates to the 2016 Republican National
Convention are Unbound!
As most of you know, I have been defending the right of the delegates to the
Republican National Convention to vote according to their personal choice in all
matters to come before the Republican National Convention, including the vote
to nominate the Republican Candidate for President, for several years.
Here is something I recently discovered that most of us did not know, including
me!
Binding delegates to the results of presidential preference primaries first
appeared in the Rules of the Republican Party in 1976.
I write about this in the next chapter of my “Owner’s Manual for Delegates”
entitled “Spinning Straw Into Gold”.
“Select, allocate and bind. The fraudulent addition of these three words to the
Rules of the Republican Party in the 2008 Convention, as detailed in Chapter
One, is the political equivalent of "spinning straw into gold".
Without the use of force to bind the votes of delegates to the results of the
primary process, primaries are nearly worthless "beauty contests".
This chapter explores the history of "binding" in the Republican presidential
nomination process, and reveals some stunning facts.
Delegates have been bound only once in the history of the Republican Party.
In 1976, the Ford campaign, afraid of losing "pledged" delegates to Reagan
forces and having the strength of delegate numbers needed, forced the
adoption of the "Justice Resolution" which amended the convention rules to
bind the delegates to cast their convention votes according to the results of
binding primaries.
This historic event was the first convention in the history of the Republican
Party where the delegates were denied the freedom to vote as they wished in the
nomination vote for President. And, 1976 was also the last time delegates have
been bound by convention rules to cast their votes according to the results of
binding primary elections, since the 1980 convention rescinded the Justice
Resolution entirely restoring the prohibition of binding.
This history has huge implications for 2016, since it calls attention to the fact
that the convention rules of the Republican Party do not bind delegates to cast
their votes according to the results of binding primaries.
Therefore, as "spinning straw into gold" is to primaries, "Rumplestiltskin" is
toconventions. Delegates to the 2016 convention are not bound.”
Before you rush to ask “what does the Counsel”s Office say about this” I offer
this statement from that office:
. “One of the important rules changes over the last 50 years has been the
unit rule prohibited…that change was made so that an individual delegate can
vote his or her conscience.” (transcript, RNC Standing Committee on the Rules,
January 19, 2006 pp 93-94)
That statement was made by Tom Josefiak to the members of the RNC Rules
Committee as part of an orientation session for Rules Committee members. Mr.
Josefiak was part of a panel of expert presenters that also included Ben Ginsberg,
Mike Duncan, and Morton Blackwell. The meeting was presided over by David
Norcross, chairman of the RNC Rules Committee.
And, the rule Mr. Josefiak referred to is current Rule 38, Unit Rule.
That’s right. Every delegate to the 2016 Republican National Convention is a
completely free agent, free to vote for the candidate of their choice on every
ballot at the convention in Cleveland in July. Every delegate is a Superdelegate!
In Chapter One, I discussed the fraudulent process that was employed to insert
the words “select, allocate and bind” into the section of the Rules of the
Republican Party that deal with the election of delegates to the national
convention.
The rest of the chapter, Spinning Straw Into Gold, will provide much more detail
to expose the actors and the methods that have been employed over the past
several presidential nominations to Spin Straw Into Gold by stealing the right to
choose the party’s presidential nominee and transferring that right to the Political
Industrial Complex who have turned primaries into gold.
We are the Republican National Committee, this has been done on our watch and
there is nothing we can do about it until the 2016 convention.
What happens then is an open question that can only be answered by the
delegates that will constitute the highest authority of the Republican Party of the
United States, the Republican National Convention of 2016.
Curly Haugland
Republican National Committeeman for North Dakota
At an event in Iowa, an audience member asked Mrs. Clinton, a Democratic presidential candidate, whether she would nominate President Obama for a role on the Supreme Court if she became the next president. Mrs. Clinton responded immediately, according to CBS News:
Wow, what a great idea. Nobody has ever suggested that to me. Wow, I love that, wow. He may have a few other things to do, but I tell you that's a great idea … He's brilliant and he can set forth an argument and he was a law professor. He's got all the credentials.Currently, Supreme Court justices have an average age of around 75, according to birthdates available from the Supreme Court website. Four of the justices will be over 80 by the end of the next presidential term, leading many to assume that the next president, Republican or Democrat, will likely appoint at least one Supreme Court justice.
But could President Barack Obama become Justice Barack Obama?
“There are no constitutional restrictions on who can become a Supreme Court Justice (or any federal judge, for that matter),” Suzanna Sherry, professor of law at Vanderbilt Law School, told The Christian Science Monitor.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution states that the President has the power to appoint Supreme Court justices, among other offices, with the approval and consent of the Senate. Requirements as to who can be nominated were not included, leaving it to the discretion of the president.
There is also precedent for former presidents serving on the Supreme Court. William Howard Taft, the 27th President of the United States from 1909 to 1913, later served on the Supreme Court as Chief Justice from 1921 to 1930, according to his White House biography.
President Obama’s biggest hurdle to a Supreme Court appointment would likely be a political one.
“Any Supreme Court appointment must be made with the advice and consent of the Senate – which is currently controlled by Republicans, and is likely to be vulnerable to a Republican filibuster for the foreseeable future,” Seth Kreimer, Kenneth W. Gemmill Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, told The Christian Science Monitor via email.
The Senate must confirm any Supreme Court appointments made by the president. Constitutionally, the only requirement is a vote from the Senate approving the appointment. However, the candidate also has to go through a Judiciary Committee hearing before reaching a general Senate vote.
Although rejection of a nominee for the Supreme Court is rare, it has happened in the past. The last rejected nominee was Robert Bork, who was nominated by Ronald Reagan and rejected by the Senate in 1987.
Mrs. Clinton referenced the need for a Democrat-controlled Senate in her answer in Iowa.
"Now, we do have to get a Democratic Senate to get him confirmed, so you're going to have to help me on that."
But Obama himself may not favor the idea. In an interview with the New Yorker in 2014, President Obama was asked about the possibility of a Taft-like move from the presidency to the Supreme Court. Ultimately, Obama rejected the idea.
“When I got out of law school, I chose not to clerk,” he told the New Yorker. “Partly because I was an older student, but partly because I don’t think I have the temperament to sit in a chamber and write opinions.”





