Ethics of Representative

Posted by Esceptico 9 years ago to Politics
146 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

The other night I saw two delegates from Florida interviewed. Both were elected to vote for Trump at the convention. The two were Cruz supporters and freely admitted on national television they ran as Trump delegates only so they could switch their vote to Cruz on the second ballot if there was one. I gather is part of the Cruz “ground team” procedure. The rules allow this. The two were asked if they thought they were doing anything unethical by being elected to vote for Trump with an agenda to vote for Cruz. Both answered it was not unethical. What is the opinion in the Gulch?

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 3.
  • Posted by $ CBJ 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    It would be unethical for a potential delegate to say that he/she supports Trump when that person actually supports Cruz. However, it would be ethical for that person to say that if elected, he or she will vote for Trump on the first ballot. But if, as you say, you don't even know the name of the delegate your are voting for, how can he or she mislead you?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    How can a potential delegate mislead you when you say you don't even get the individual's name, let alone talk to him or her? If the rules say that this unnamed person is pledged to your candidate on the first vote, that's all you can assume when you vote for that delegate.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years ago
    Yes, its objectively unethical. But the questioner is as well unethical, by posing the question to people involved in a primary system, 'democratic election', and political process that are by themselves unethical, implying to the general public that such consideration even exists in the minds of those involved. And more, that the democratic process was ever intended to be a part of the entire ' Presidential Election Process'.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Truth Mr. Eseptico is NEVER far afield from a free an open discussion.

    I must now do a Sherman having found out I could have run for President all those years ago as I was born in UK of one US Citizen parent.

    If nominated I shall not run.
    If elected i shall not serve.
    I'm having too much fun Objectively
    Tilting at Subjective wind mills philosophically.

    Sourcing your comments is always a good idea as it helps the rest of us follow your thinking to a conclusion. With thanks for those who are at that level.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago
    I'm going to do this here instead of in the original thread it's the sources of another problem the Cruz Haters have with our system here in the USA. About eligibility. Specifically for those who never learned the art of research.

    The Supreme Court has never made a judgement on natural born citizen and refused to overturn the one made in Pennsylvania.

    Congress refused to comment any further on the subject and backed up the Pennsylvania decision on the matter.

    No one else has bothered to push the issue in the court system

    The Department of Immigration and Naturalization now counts as native born and natural born those born outside the country of at least one US Citizen parent.

    This is the last time I'm offering diaper service on the matter.

    Here is the beginning of the resources any competent individual would have checked prior to commenting

    Harvard Law Review: Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen and ...
    https://winteryknight.com/.../harvard......
    Jan 14, 2016 - Donald Trump has been questioning whether Ted Cruz is eligible to run for ... Harvard Law Review: Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen and is eligible to become President ... A legal opinion from the Harvard Law Review.
    Harvard scholar: Ted Cruz's citizenship, eligibility for president
    www.theguardian.com › US News › Ted Cruz
    Jan 10, 2016 - Harvard scholar: Ted Cruz's citizenship, eligibility for president 'unsettled' ... Cruz has since cited a bipartisan Harvard Law Review article by two former ..... ever have an opinion that was helpful to a rightwing nutter like Trump.
    Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president - The Washington Post
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio......
    Jan 12, 2016 - Mary Brigid McManamon is a constitutional law professor at Widener ... [Opinion: Yes, Ted Cruz is a “natural-born citizen”] ... This notion appears to emanate largely from a recent comment in the Harvard Law Review Forum by ...
    On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” - Harvard Law ...
    harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-m...
    Mar 11, 2015 - Harvard Law Review Forum ... See Christina S. Lohman, Presidential Eligibility: The Meaning of the Natural-Born ... candidate, Senator Ted Cruz, was born in a Canadian hospital to a U.S. citizen mother. ... See, e.g., Laurence H. Tribe & Theodore B. Olson, Opinion Letter, Presidents and Citizenship, 2 J.L.
    Harvard law professor: Ted Cruz's eligibility to be president is
    www.rawstory.com/.../harvard-law-prof......
    Jan 11, 2016 - Harvard law professor: Ted Cruz's eligibility to be president is 'murky ... Cruz has since cited a bipartisan Harvard Law Review article by two ...
    Constitutional Scholars Explain Why Ted Cruz Is Eligible to ...
    abcnews.go.com/Politics/constitutiona......
    Jan 6, 2016 - Legal scholars say Ted Cruz is eligible to occupy the Oval Office. ... as President,” the bipartisan duo wrote in a Harvard Law Review article in March 2015. ... Laurence Tribe, a professor at Harvard Law School, told ABC News ...
    Ted Cruz has a very real birther problem: The law is not settled
    www.salon.com/.../ted_cruz_has_a_very......
    Jan 22, 2016 - The founders did restrict the presidency to natural-born citizens. ... over the eligibility of Canadian-born Ted Cruz to serve as president awakened ... to the Harvard Law Review to argue the opposite side from Harvard's Lawrence ... In 1774, Thomas Jefferson published “Summary View of the Rights of British ...
    The debate over whether Ted Cruz is eligible to be ... - Vox
    www.vox.com/explainers/2016/1/14/1077...
    Jan 15, 2016 - Is Ted Cruz constitutionally eligible to serve as president of the United States? ... And court opinions that have mentioned the term in passing while ruling ... But it's a stretch to say, as Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe did earlier .... It's not like this dilemma was unforeseeable: A law review article about ...
    Is Cruz Eligible to Run for President? A Primer -- NYMag
    nymag.com/daily/.../01/cruz-eligible-...
    Jan 22, 2016 - Cruz is clearly a citizen under the second qualification, so what's the problem? ... in an often-cited March 2015 op-ed in the Harvard Law Review. ... in a CNN opinion piece that Cruz might not have been eligible if he were born in 1790. ... When Cruz was my constitutional law student at Harvard, he aced the ...
    Ted Cruz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz
    Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz (born December 22, 1970) is an American politician and the junior United States Senator from Texas. He is a candidate for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in the 2016 election. Cruz graduated from Princeton University in 1992, and from Harvard Law .... While at Harvard Law, he was a primary editor of the Harvard Law Review, ...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Are you seriously asking me to accept anything anyone says at face value with out some sources and back up? Some of us were busy with more important issues in other parts of the world at some of those times. Some of us weren't born then. Some went to schools that didn't bother to include the mysterious Mr. McBride in the their history curriculum.

    And your only answer is accept what I say at face value with nothing to back it up? Get real. I noted Mr. or Mrs. or Ms. Lbrty didn't mind adding to his/her or their comment.

    Objectivism of which you are a stranger demands facts and background and does not judge in a prejudicial manner for that you want Socialism and the philosophy of Plato.

    Does that answer your question?


    And you want me to accept t.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I do not disagree on the notion that saying one thing and doing another is unethical. I go back to my original statement however: that you are superimposing that standard in a situation into which that standard has never existed. Your assumption is that there is an unwritten rule of loyalty attached to the process of electing delegates. I can find no such assumptions in either historical record nor the rules of party voting to justify such an assertion and it is this assertion (regarding application) upon which I differ with you. See http://constitution.com/lets-clear-te...

    Several items I think are of import:

    1. That Cruz' campaign understands how the delegation process works (for good or evil) with bound and unbound delegates. They have been educating delegates on that process and getting involved to make sure delegates favorable to that campaign are in place as much as possible. Cruz is working - and working hard - to secure the nomination.
    2. That Trump's campaign doesn't understand how the delegation process works. Article after article of talking to party leaders of any level indicate that Trump has done nothing at a grass-roots level in many states to obtain delegates. He has been relying solely on popular opinion. Trump has done little to nothing to secure the nomination.
    => That Trump's campaign is probably going to lose in a contested convention because it has not spent the time or resources necessary to win over other candidates' delegates to himself.

    I remain open to more information if you have more to provide or a separate context you feel it appropriate to add.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago
    Going back over the original posted question and leaving the bogus so far Mr. McBride behind "The Rules Allow This" provides the answer to the question. If the title had anything to do with anything the omnibus budget bill signed Dec. 31st would not could not have have included a section doing away with civil rights/ So at that level Yes it's ethical.

    Back up one and two steps. Who made the rules and who gave them the right to make the rules. Just like the rules for all of politics it's a sum total of party members who vote the party leadership into office and provides the legal and ethical cover.

    If the people making the rule did so in violation of party rules or policies they could be blamed.

    Same applies to the rules governing the Democrat or socialist side of the equation and others such as five percent rule, winner take all rule.

    Or what gave the Republican leadership the right to become members of the Socialist Coalition?

    One answer is the abdication of responsibility of the party members.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by teri-amborn 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    IDK about this McBride person...
    However, you are correct and completely on the same path to truth that I am.
    False accusation is the first aggressive step of people with evil intentions.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years ago
    Legality doesn't make a procedure ethical.There are so many examples of this that could be made, but, let me say that there are so many convoluted and so many laws on the books that almost anything can be deemed legal or illegal. At one time slavery was legal -- need I say more? .Those delegates know that. Shame on them.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by librty 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    It is much different than establishment created party primaries that if closely examined are probably not constitutional to begin with. The constitution created the Electoral college and with no requirement that a Elector has to vote on party lines. As a matter of fact the president and vice president were merely the first and second in number of votes no matter party affiliation. The primary system is one of the most corrupt systems pushed through by progressives. That is why the Libertarian party only uses the convention system set up in the constitution. Rather than vote for Nixon who the year before destroyed the dollar by taking us off the gold standard, McBride chose to vote for a more objective alternative.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Speaking of which did this Mcbride person actually exist and when will we see some evidence behind the charge....Seems like everyone forgot that little part of the problem puzzle.

    Without that information go back one step and the charge itself is baseless and unethical. Until facts have been presented no determination can be made.and to attempt to do so is unethical and immoral.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Ethical standards are an individual choice and an individual responsibility something most people including the entire left wing of politics runs from. As for the guidelines of objectivism it would require first finding out all the facts and second judging them by one's own ethical and moral values. Assuming any of that unsubstantiated information had any basis in fact. The new liberal way is 'mere suspicious' which on it' s face is morally reprehensible and of no ethical value.' By the ways could have been used more profitably with sources and verifiable facts in evidence. assuming such a person exists.

    Not our job to change diapers. Your (whoever presented this example) charge your responsibility. Judging without some proof the charge is valid and then on the merits of the charge is pre judging before facts are in evidence another way of saying prejudicial. Any chance it will be presented and if not this should have been presented in tht manner as a made up example and presented in that manner. I cannot accept 'memory' without confirmation and the rest of the requirements of at the least that required to establish probable cause.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 9 years ago
    If I had the opportunity I'd do the same thing.

    I'm with CBJ -- the whole political process is so deeply illegitimate on so many levels that just about any action that may slow down or stop any of its many invasions of liberty becomes justifiable. Disobeying the law will only be wrong per se if we first get a completely rightful set of laws.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo