Tag: Rules

Two years ago, your Wizard opined on the choice Republicans faced between potential Supreme Court nominees Mary Beth Kelly and Jane Markey.  Judge Kelly, of course, is now Justice Kelly, and Judge Markey is trying again, this time squaring off against Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Colleen O'Brien.  

The Democrats have not liked the EFM law since it had its new dentures installed under the Republican legislature, and Governor Rick Snyder.  Once the realization that bloated contracts might actually be dissolved to preserve solvency for some governments, activists in labor and the donkey party got to work on placing a ballot measure before the voters.  The underlying hope of course, would be to inundate the airwaves with imagery of the starving kids of municipal workers and their uncertain futures.  Riding the guilt train all the way to the election where likely another 7 other ballot initiatives will reside.

But once again, someone forgot to dot an 'I'.

Or at least forgot to check the validity of the petitions used with the canvassing board BEFORE collecting 226,000 signatures.  Perhaps if they had done so, they might be a little more satisfied with the result.  Norm Shinkle, one of the board members, weighed in:

"Outside the meeting room, Shinkle said it was clear that Stand Up for Democracy's petitions did not comply with state law and that the group should have had the documents' format approved by the board before it started collecting signatures.

"None of this would have occurred today if they had their petition approved like almost everyone else does," he said. "The petition was defective." "

Defective.  Big 'D' .. 'efective'.

Its easy it seems, for the Dems to cry foul.  Party lines!  Partisanship! Favoritism! Those rotten Republicans!!!

Yet when one looks at the vote, split as it was along party lines, one should also weigh in the rule of law. And in doing so, see the partisanship FOR BREAKING THE LAW. Or perhaps bending it.  To assume that the Republicans are unfair by rejecting it against the will of the 'other' partisans, is to ignore the fact that the 'other' partisans are asking for an acceptance of the petitions, even illegally.

A federal appeals court judge pretty much put the Obama justice department on notice when he demanded to know if they agreed to the rules.

"Smith, a Reagan appointee, went on to say that comments from the president and others in the Executive Branch indicate they believe judges don't have the power to review laws and strike those that are unconstitutional, specifically referencing Mr. Obama's comments yesterday about judges being an "unelected group of people."

The Rules pretty much reconfirmed in 1803 Marbury v. Madison that:

Yes. The Supreme Court has the authority to review acts of Congress and determine whether they are unconstitutional and therefore void.

It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each. If courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

The rules are the rules.  

• February 2011 - Republican National Committee Issues rules memo.
  
• July 13, 2011 Saul Anuzis blog outlines Rules
  
• Aug 13 2011 - Election Set, Cred Committee, Allocation vote set
  
• Oct 1st 2011 - Deadline for allocation change without waiver from RNC, AND requires full 120 Member vote anyhow.
  
• Feb 4th 2012 - Meeting held as a part of another event. No minutes taken, as no vote could be taken. (see previous)
  
• Feb 7th 2012 - 20 year veteran MiGOP attorney Eric Doster releases the MiGOP memo outlining allocation rules to God, Media, Campaigns, etc.
  
• Feb 8th 2012 - Schostak interview confirming previous item
  
• Feb 14th 2012 - Communications outline same in Frontloading article
  
• Feb 28 2012 - Primary held, campaigns, media report split in CD delegate assignments and proportional splits.
  
• Feb 29 2012 - Anuzis plan to revisit Idea mentioned in Feb 4th "meeting" Use as plausible platform for shift in delegate assignment.

They just don't know when to stop.

Saul has his weekly "musings" propaganda letter out, and of course he feels the need to include further repudiation of the truth.  First he makes the point he is a family man with mouths to feed so we feel sorry for him if/when he gets his corrupt rear tossed from the party mechanism, then he goes into the Romney inevitability meme. THEN states the obvious and points out how dangerous Obama is, so we rally together with him, and finally drops the straw man "Operation hilarity" bomb:

From Democrat/Liberal Activist Joe DiSano "Operation: Hilarity."

The do-gooders and progressive purists will wring their hands at those among us who helped Rick Santorum win 7 of Michigan's 14 Congressional Districts. They will tell you our efforts were misguided and unproductive. Some will even say our efforts were unethical and an example of dirty politics. They may be right on that last point.

Our efforts may have been dirty and unethical. I don't think so, but I suppose honest people can debate that. What is undeniable is the effectiveness of the efforts of progressives and Democrats to help deliver delegates to Santorum.

Through our campaign of 80,000 robo-calls, 200,000 emails, several radio and TV appearances and countless print mentions leading up to primary day, a list of just under 14,000 Democrats pledged their support to Rick Santorum in the GOP primary.

Look to the results in Michigan's sprawling 1st U.S. Congressional District. Santorum won the district by less than 1 percent or 790 votes. Our list of Democrats in the 1st U.S. Congressional District had 800 voters agreeing to support Santorum. Look at the 13th U.S. Congressional District, where Santorum won by a margin with 1,535 votes. Our robo-call program alone identified just fewer than 1,300 Democrats willing to hold their nose and vote for Santorum in the Wayne County-based 13th CD. That doesn't include people activated by our email blasts or media appearances.

At the least, our efforts in Michigan moved the delegates from the 1st, 7th and 13th U.S. Congressional Districts to Santorum's column. We denied Romney the clean sweep he'd expected.

The Dems I know voted both ways.  And as I pointed out previously, the Snyder win by actively pursuing Democrats and independents in the 2010 Republican gubernatorial primary only got a "stfu," and "you don't know what you are talking about." and "It didn't happen.", by the same folks who now cry foul. And frankly, most of the presumed crossover Dems FEAR Santorum far more than Romney on two levels; Ability to beat Obama, and Governance.  

In fact, there is really no proof the meeting ever took place.  The folks who occupy the credentials committee have had ample opportunity to PROVE their intent was not to subvert the rules for the gain of their guy, but are slow in even coming up with made up documentation.

Kinda sucks when not everyone is on board huh Saul? Bobby?

It also doesn't help when EVERYTHING points towards the rules being CHANGED February 29th. (After the contest was over)

Am guessing about 4-5.  But that is just a guess.  And lets take the guess a little further with a favoring Mitt Romney on Super Tuesday theme.  Certainly it would follow, as the Iowa, Viginia, Maine, and Florida races demonstrate, team Romney has a bag of tricks, like we have never seen.  And by golly this list would be incomplete without adding Michigan to the mix.

Funny thing about election fraud in the 21st century, as the internet makes it a little harder to escape the truth.

The secretary of state requires candidates to complete their POST-ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCE COMPLIANCE STATEMENT before assuming office. the bullet points read:

• This form must be filed by any candidate subject to Michigan's Campaign Finance Act who is elected to a state, county, city, township, village or school office. The form must be filed before the candidate assumes office. Exceptions: an elected candidate whose Candidate Committee did not receive or expend more than $1,000.00 during the election cycle is not required to submit this form. In addition, this form does not have to be filed by an individual elected to a U.S. Senate, U.S. House or precinct delegate position.

• An elected candidate who is required to file a Post-Election Campaign Finance Compliance Statement must submit this form to the filing official designated to receive the elected candidate's campaign finance disclosure filings.

• An elected candidate subject to the Post -Election Campaign Finance Compliance Statement filing requirement who fails to submit this form prior to assuming office is guilty of a misdemeanor.

• If you need information on your current compliance status under the Michigan Campaign Finance Act, contact the Michigan Department of State's Bureau of Elections and/or the appropriate county clerks as necessary.

One might presume that failure to do so would exclude a candidate from assuming their elected position.

According the to BOE, Republican majority leader Randy Richardville filed This (image at right - click to view full sized) as his post election compliance. So naturally one might assume all is done, and properly.