Which has Greater Authority? The Rule of Law or Hierarchical Power Structure?
We Won, Now What?
Lauren and I put our names into the hat to be county delegates. We ran unopposed and won our position. Now, by the end of the week, we should know if we're going to Lansing (the Capitol of Michigan) to nominate Republican candidates for the November election.
As Lauren and I are dipping our foot into local and state politics, we are witnessing a power struggle at the local level that may have implications at the state level and beyond.
How it all Works
Within the US Republican party, delegates are elected at a county level based on population. All elected county delegates attend a "Republican County Convention" to elect a certain number of state delegates (and alternates) to go to Lansing for the "Republican State Convention". At the state convention, delegates will nominate the following possitions to run on the Republican ticket in the November election:
- Lieutenant Governor
- Secretary of State
- Atterney General
- Two Justices of the Michigan Supreme Court
- Two members of the State Board of Education
- Two members for the Wayne State university Board of Trustees
Witnessing a Power Struggle
Without going into gory details, last April there was a major upset among the county Republicans. The "Chair" of the County Republican Party gave a speech that upset many people, criticising the Republican party and their position on multiple topics. He publicly endorsed a particular candate for governor (which the county "head" is supposed to remain neutral) and made a desperate plea to reform the party before it's too late.
Attending the April convention were the delegates which had the right to vote, and also "visitors" and "observers" and the media and press. Attendees became riled up in the audience and became disruptive, one individual even blowing an airhorn.
When it became time to vote, it was difficult to discern who were elected county delegates and who were "observers" and "guests". In the midst of the chaos, the convention staff ushered all observers out of the room, while the delegates voted.
The people who were removed from the room became extremely upset, calling people RINO (Republican In Name Only) and many other inflamatory phrases.
The first vote, once order was restored, was to remove the county chair from his position and replace him with a new county chair, because of his public endorsment which is considered out of order.
Yet they didn't follow rules of order on how to replace a chairman. They require, but did not have the required 2/3rds marjority vote and there is no provision for "vote of no confidence" in the Republican county by-laws outside of starwars.
The people outside of the room were horrified that the leader of the county Reublican party was just "de-throned". It seemed like a power play, a coup. In response, the original chair refused to step down.
Two Leaders, Who's Legit?
There's a phrase "possession is 9/10ths of the law", meaning whoever possesses the asset, owns the asset. By continuing to hold the keys and act as "chair", he effectively is still "chair". He still had financial control and he paid the rent for a whole year on the office building.
The new "chair" was elected by the delegates. The previous guy was given a majority "vote of no confidence". So who's legit? Who does the State of Michigan recognize as the legitimate "chair" of the County-level Republican party?
They took it to the judge.
The Judge's Ruling
The judge ruled that the manner in which the previous chair was replaced did not follow the by-laws of the Republican party. It was ruled an illegitimate power grab, removing the chair and replacing him spontaneously like was done.
The law is on the side of the original chairman. He was officially REINSTATED to his position as County Chair.
But that wasn't exactly what the judge was supposed to be ruling on. The judge went outside the scope of the question: does the chair have to give up financial control to the new chair. The judge said the new chair is not legitimate and the original chair is reinstated, going beyond the scope of the case.
Two Conventions? Two Parties?
Here's where we enter the picture.
This dispute was not resolved when we were elected county delegates. We received TWO notices of where the County Convention will be held and at the exact same time. Two different locations. One hosted by the original chair, the other hosted by the replacement chair.
Which one do we attend?
Which Has Greater Authority?
Here's where the original question comes into play. Which has greater authority? Rule of law or heierarchical power?
The law is on the side of the original chair and his convention would be technically legit, since he was not ousted properly and a judge ruled he was not ousted properly. The original chairman has been determined to be the official chair of the county party and his County Convention is the official convention, according to law and the judge's ruling.
The Michigan Republican Party is on the side of the new chair. They have demanded that the new chair form a new county republican party, effectively eliminating any trace of the former party members and refusing to seat any delegates elected outside of this new county Republican party. This is techially illegal according to the judge's ruling, however if it is contested, it would take so long to resolve the issue that the election would already be over. The Michigan Republican party has stated (verbally) that they do not accept the judge's order. The new chair is requesting the statement in writing, otherwise he will have to "walk away" and advise everyone to follow the judge's ruling.
IF both county conventions take place and the delegates are split between them, the Michigan Republican Party has the final say on which delegates they will accept for the state convention.
One of the two Chairs will have to be recognized as legitimate and the other step down. But which one?
It's civil war within the party and we're stuck in the middle of it.
The Ultimate Authority
We are entering an age in our country where we say the rule of law is the authority, but we've discovered all it takes is some heirarchical pressure and maneuvering and the rule of law is often ignored and the greater authority becomes the "authority". Nobody wants to get in trouble.
Laws require the consent of the governed. Bad laws can be nullified by the governed. The US constitution only addresses what laws can and cannot be allowed in accordance to the self-evident, unalienable rights given by our Creator.
That Creator is the God of Heaven, that God which the founders of this country recognize as the greatest authority.
We area all accountable to His ultimate authority.
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. Ecclesiastes 12:13-14
Bless the Most High!
Do You Like Discovering New Content?
ListNerds is a content discovery platform. Members promote content, various products and interesting links. Every click rewards you with MAIL credits to promote whatever content you want to share! If you'd like to learn more, visit Listnerds.com
Posted using LasseCash