Continuing the Discussion
on GOP Rules
Saturday, April 2, 2016
by Paul Lukasiak
[EDITOR's NOTE: This is a follow-on to Mr. Lukasiak's vox Populi of 1 April 2016 and Mr. Berg-Andersson's response to same.]
Would you agree, Mr. Berg-Andersson, that while it is true that Rule 42 designates Rules 26-42 as "the temporary rules for the next convention", it is also true that the rules passed in 2012 included Rule 13, which stipulates that the Republican National Committee [RNC] had to do a "call for the next national convention" prior to Dec 1 , and that "[t]he call shall include the text of the rules relating to the convening and the proceedings of the national convention,... including any penalties assessed under Rule No. 17(a),..."?
And in fact, that call itself includes Rules 13 through 42 (see http://tinyurl.com/z5qufxv [in .pdf format-Ed.]).
The reason that Rules 26-42 are designated "temporary" is because they involve the proceedings of the convention only once it is called to order, and are thus subject to change at the convention itself. (As Mr. Berg-Andersson notes, there are things in Rules 13-25 that impact how the convention is run: but nothing in Rules 26-42 that impact how things are done pre-"call to order", which is why they have a separate and distinct designation.)
One other "fun fact": the 2012 rules stipulate (in Rule 12) that the RNC may amend rules 1-11, and 13-25 (and, indeed, the RNC did amend Rule 16 in the spring of 2013); which, in turn, kind of makes the not "temporary" rules the most temporary rules of all, doesn't it?
REB-A response to 2 Apr 2016 vox Populi
Mr. Berg-Andersson responds:
Yes, I most certainly agree with you, Mr. Lukasiak: which is why, as I said, I was playing "devil's advocate" in my response to your previous vox Populi. I simply cannot believe that all that the various and sundry State (or Territorial) Republican Parties have been- and, in many cases, yet will be- going through (as I now type this) during this year's presidential nominating process (all that these same GOPs have already [by late last year] filed with the RNC within their so-called 'Rule 16(f) filings') will, in the end, all be for naught...
certainly I would have to wonder just how willingly they might be (should it turn out that they, in fact, will be) throwing out that which the rules up through Rule 25 seemingly require.
But Politics is, indeed, often enough a business passing strange (and all I have to do myself is to think back on proposed Rules changes- whether successfully pressed for adoption or not [more often, not]- considered on the respective floors of past National Conventions in both Major Parties in order to so easily discern that these, if only for the most part [whatever their merits, or lack thereof, were these to have been considered in something of a "vacuum" of pure reason], were primarily [where not even solely] advanced to, in turn, the more advance the possible nomination of a particular presidential contender as that Party's candidate for President)...
therefore, one has to- come the GOP Convention in Cleveland (and even if a presidential contender should appear to have acquired the support of at least 1237 delegates to that Convention before said Convention even first convenes this coming mid-July)- be prepared to behold just about anything in this regard.