Changes

=== RNC procedures ===

=== RNC procedures ===

The Republican National Committee (RNC) has a set of rules that govern how it operates and picks its leadership.  Each of 56 states and American territories has three representatives who are members of the RNC, and they meet twice a year.  Their next meeting is in January 2013, when they will elect the Chairman for the next two years, until January 2015.  Its current Chairman recently announced that he is running for reelection.

The Republican National Committee (RNC) has its own set of rules that govern how it operates and picks its leadership.  Each of 56 states and American territories has three representatives who are members of the RNC, and they meet twice a year.  Their next meeting is in January 2013, when they will elect the Chairman for the next two years, until January 2015.  Its current Chairman recently announced that he is running for reelection.

The nomination and election procedures are governed by the RNC's "bylaws", which is the name given to the rules that govern how any organization or corporation is run internally.  In this case, nominations for the office of Chairman are made by the vote of a majority of the delegates from at least 3 states or territories.  Several candidates for the office are typically nominated, and then the RNC members vote on whom they prefer.  It often requires multiple ballots to reduce the number of candidates to two or three, whereupon one candidate finally wins the race by receiving a majority of 168 votes (85 total votes).

The nomination and election procedures are governed by the RNC's "bylaws", which is the name given to the rules that govern how any organization or corporation is run internally.  In this case, nominations for the office of Chairman are made by the vote of a majority of the delegates from at least 3 states or territories.  Several candidates for the office are typically nominated, and then the RNC members vote on whom they prefer.  It often requires multiple ballots to reduce the number of candidates to two or three, whereupon one candidate finally wins the race by receiving a majority of 168 votes (85 total votes).

For example, on the first ballot there may be five candidates who win 50, 40, 25, 20 and 15 votes, with some members absent and therefore not voting.  The candidates who received only 20 and 15 votes may then drop out, such that on the second ballot the other three candidates receive more votes each.  This process is repeated until a candidate receives a majority of the votes.

For example, on the first ballot there may be five candidates who win 50, 40, 25, 20 and 15 votes, with some members absent and therefore not voting.  The candidates who received only 20 and 15 votes may then drop out, such that on the second ballot the other three candidates receive more votes each.  This process is repeated until a candidate receives a majority of the votes.

=== When Are the Next Elections? ===

=== When Are the Next Public Elections? ===

One aspect of politics that some like, while others dislike, is that it never stops.  The day after an election, the focus begins on the next election.  Most politicians never take their eye off their approval ratings or the next election.  Already the RNC and DNC (the committees for the two major political parties) are planning ahead for the next elections in 2013, with the hope of winning them.

One aspect of politics that many people like, while others dislike it, is that politics never stops.  The day after an election, the focus begins on the next election.  Most politicians never take their eye off their approval ratings or the next election.  Already the RNC and DNC (the committees for the two major political parties) are planning ahead for the next elections in 2013, with the hope of winning them.

New Jersey and Virginia are unusual in holding major elections in odd-numbered years, so in 2013 there will be campaigns and elections in these states.  Why do New Jersey and Virginia do this?  Probably to give greater power to the political machines, keeping them influential all the time.

New Jersey and Virginia are unusual in holding major elections in odd-numbered years, so in 2013 there will be campaigns and elections in these states.  Why do New Jersey and Virginia do this?  Probably to give greater power to the political machines, keeping them influential all the time.

Christie and Booker must first win their party's primary in June in order to qualify for the ballot in November.  There will almost certainly be other Democrats who oppose Booker for that party's nomination.  Will anyone run against Christie in his primary?

Christie and Booker must first win their party's primary in June in order to qualify for the ballot in November.  There will almost certainly be other Democrats who oppose Booker for that party's nomination.  Will anyone run against Christie in his primary?

There will be many other state races of great importance in 2013 in New Jersey.  There will also be special elections as congressional seats open up around the Nation.  It is expected that Obama will appoint John Kerry to be the new Secretary of State after Hillary Clinton resigns, and that will create an open U.S. Senate seat from Massachusetts.  Republican Scott Brown, who lost reelection last week for his U.S. Senate seat, would then likely run to replace John Kerry.

There will be other state races of importance in 2013 in New Jersey.  There will also be special elections as congressional seats open up around the Nation.  It is expected that Obama will appoint John Kerry to be the new Secretary of State after Hillary Clinton resigns, and that will create an open U.S. Senate seat from Massachusetts.  Republican Scott Brown, who recently lost reelection for his U.S. Senate seat, would then likely run to replace John Kerry.

Already congressmen must begin thinking about their races for reelection 2014, and the race for the next presidential election in 2016 has quietly begun too.  On the Republican side, it is expected that Jeb Bush will seek and win the nomination, while Hillary Clinton seems likely to be the Democrat nominee.

Already congressmen must begin thinking about their races for reelection 2014, and the race for the next presidential election in 2016 has quietly begun too.  On the Republican side, it is expected that Jeb Bush will seek and win the nomination, while Hillary Clinton seems likely to be the Democrat nominee.

'''2.'''  The '''John Peter Zenger''' trial in 1735 is the most important case ever for the media, particularly newspapers.  He was a publisher accused of the crime of harshly criticizing the colonial New York governor.  Zenger’s defense was that he (and everyone else) has the right to print the truth.  But the judge instructed the jury that the law did not recognize truth as a defense to the charges.  Under the law at the time, the jury had no authority to acquit Zenger based on the truth of his statements.

'''2.'''  The '''John Peter Zenger''' trial in 1735 is the most important case ever for the media, particularly newspapers.  He was a publisher accused of the crime of harshly criticizing the colonial New York governor.  Zenger’s defense was that he (and everyone else) has the right to print the truth.  But the judge instructed the jury that the law did not recognize truth as a defense to the charges.  Under the law at the time, the jury had no authority to acquit Zenger based on the truth of his statements.

The jury acquitted him anyway, thereby establishing freedom of the press.  This was another important example of jury nullification.

The jury acquitted him anyway, thereby establishing freedom of the press (and also a type of freedom of speech).  This was another important example of jury nullification.  To this day, England does not have the full freedom of speech and the press that Americans have because of the Zenger trial.

'''3.''' By 1804, Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans had control of Congress and set their sights on removing Federalist Supreme Court Justice '''Samuel Chase'''. The House of Representatives impeached him, and trial began with the Senate as the jury.  His prosecutor was John Randolph, a partisan Jeffersonian who was distantly related to the Federalist Chief Justice John Marshall.  25 out of 34 Senators were Jeffersonians, so conviction and removal of the Federalist Chase for his political biases seemed likely.

'''3. By 1804''', Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans had control of Congress and set their sights on removing Federalist Supreme Court Justice '''Samuel Chase'''. The House of Representatives impeached him, and trial began with the Senate as the jury.  His prosecutor was John Randolph, a partisan Jeffersonian who was distantly related to the Federalist Chief Justice John Marshall.  25 out of 34 Senators (more than 2/3rds of the U.S. Senate at the time) were Jeffersonians, so conviction and removal of the Federalist Chase for his political biases seemed likely.

But the effort failed.  During the trial Randolph himself criticized Jefferson over a separate issue, the infamous Yazoo land fraud in Georgia, an issue that split Jeffersonians.  Meanwhile, the case against Chase amounted to little more than some intemperate remarks he made while sitting as trial judge in a grand jury proceeding.  The Senators were unimpressed, and at most 19/34 voted to convict on any of the charges, far short of the requisite 2/3rd.

But the effort failed.  During the trial Randolph himself criticized Jefferson over a separate issue, the infamous Yazoo land fraud in Georgia, an issue that split Jeffersonians.  Meanwhile, the case against Chase amounted to little more than some intemperate remarks he made while sitting as trial judge in a grand jury proceeding.  The Senators were unimpressed, and at most 19 out of 34 voted to convict on any of the charges, far short of the requisite 2/3rd.

The independence of the judiciary was established by this failed effort to remove a Supreme Court justice.  However, the episode did encourage future justices not to engage directly in politics.  No effort to impeach a Supreme Court justice has since made any progress.

The independence of the judiciary was established by this failed effort to remove a Supreme Court justice.  However, the episode did encourage future justices not to engage directly in politics.  No effort to impeach a Supreme Court justice has since made any progress.

'''4.'''  '''President Andrew Johnson''' became the enemy of Radical Republicans who controlled Congress after the Civil War.  President Johnson vetoed their legislation and even called their leaders “traitors”.  Flush from winning the war, the likes of Republican Senators Thaddeus Stevens (PA) and Charles Sumner (MA) were not about to back down.  Sumner, after all, was the fellow who once delivered an unconscionably disrespectful speech against elderly South Carolina Senator Andrew Butler, whereupon his outraged nephew Preston Brooks beat Sumner senseless with a cane.

'''4.'''  '''President Andrew Johnson''' became the enemy of Radical Republicans who controlled Congress after the Civil War.  President Johnson vetoed their legislation and even called their leaders “traitors”.  Flush from winning the war, the likes of Republican Senators Thaddeus Stevens (PA) and Charles Sumner (MA) were not about to back down.  Sumner, after all, was the fellow who once delivered a disrespectful speech against elderly South Carolina Senator Andrew Butler, whereupon his outraged nephew Preston Brooks beat Sumner senseless with a cane.

When the House of Representatives impeached President Johnson by an overwhelming vote of 126 to 47, his ouster appeared to be a ''fait accompli''.  President Johnson had violated the Tenure in Office Act by dismissing his Secretary of War, and he had been intemperate in his name-calling of key senators.  In addressing the jury of 54 senators, the prosecutor referred to President Johnson as an “accidental Chief” and “the elect of an assassin.”  Witnesses testified for both the prosecution and the defense.

When the House of Representatives impeached President Johnson by an overwhelming vote of 126 to 47, his ouster appeared to be a ''fait accompli''.  President Johnson had violated the Tenure in Office Act by dismissing his Secretary of War, and he had been intemperate in his name-calling of key senators.  In addressing the jury of 54 senators, the prosecutor referred to President Johnson as an “accidental Chief” and “the elect of an assassin.”  Witnesses testified for both the prosecution and the defense.

The prosecutors – called “managers” in impeachment trials – were confident of victory.  Manager Thaddeus Stevens described President Johnson as the “wretched man, standing at bay, surrounded by a cordon of living men, each with the axe of an executioner uplifted for his just punishment.”  Manager John Bingham brought the public galleries to their feet with his oratory: “May God forbid that the future historian shall record of this day's proceedings, that by reason of the failure of the legislative power of the people to triumph over the usurpations of an apostate President, the fabric of American empire fell and perished from the earth.”

The prosecutors – called “managers” in impeachment trials – were confident of victory.  Manager Thaddeus Stevens described President Johnson as the “wretched man, standing at bay, surrounded by a cordon of living men, each with the axe of an executioner uplifted for his just punishment.”  Manager John Bingham brought the public galleries to their feet with his oratory: “May God forbid that the future historian shall record of this day's proceedings, that by reason of the failure of the legislative power of the people to triumph over the usurpations of an apostate President, the fabric of American empire fell and perished from the earth.”

2/3rd vote was necessary for conviction, and it all turned on Senator Edmund Ross of Kansas.  Like real jurors, he spoke to no one during the proceedings and no one knew which was he was leaning.  But he voted “not guilty,” and President Johnson was acquitted by one vote.  The Radical Republicans were defeated, and never again enjoyed their unprecedented power.

2/3rd vote was necessary for conviction, and it all turned on Senator Edmund Ross of Kansas.  Like real jurors, he spoke to no one during the proceedings and no one knew which was he was leaning.  But he voted “not guilty,” and President Johnson was acquitted by one vote.  The "Radical Republican" Senators had lost, and never again regained their unprecedented power.

'''5.'''  '''William Marcy “Boss” Tweed''' began as a volunteer fireman in New York who worked his way to the top of the Democratic New York City political machine by 1863.  He developed a corrupt system known as the “Tweed Ring” that faked leases, demanded kickbacks, performed unnecessary repairs and generated other phony expenses that cost New York City from $75 million to $200 million, a huge amount of money at the time.  Famed cartoonist Thomas Nast, who created Uncle Sam and the elephant and donkey for the Republican and Democratic Parties, frequently attacked Tweed in his cartoons.

'''5.'''  '''William Marcy “Boss” Tweed''' began as a volunteer fireman in New York who worked his way to the top of the Democratic New York City political machine by 1863.  He developed a corrupt system known as the “Tweed Ring” that faked leases, demanded kickbacks, performed unnecessary repairs and generated other phony expenses that cost New York City from $75 million to $200 million, a huge amount of money at the time.  Famed cartoonist Thomas Nast, who created Uncle Sam and the elephant and donkey for the Republican and Democratic Parties, frequently attacked Tweed in his cartoons.

Eventually, Democratic federal prosecutor Samuel Tilden brought an indictment against Tweed, who was defended at trial by wealthy Republican Elihu Root in 1872.  Tilden defeated Root and obtained the conviction, which catapulted Tilden to national prominence and became the Democratic nominee for president in 1876.  He won the popular vote by a hefty 250,000, but the Republicans maneuvered to give Rutherford Hayes the White House based on a narrow lead in electoral college votes and a promise to end Reconstruction.  Elihu Root, meanwhile, became an imperialist who later advocated entry by the United States  into the League of Nations.

Eventually, Democratic federal prosecutor Samuel Tilden brought an indictment against Tweed, who was defended at trial by wealthy Republican Elihu Root in 1872.  Tilden defeated Root and obtained the conviction, which catapulted Tilden to national prominence and became the Democratic nominee for president in 1876.  He won the popular vote by a hefty 250,000, but the Republicans maneuvered to give Rutherford Hayes the White House based on a narrow lead in electoral college votes and a promise to end Reconstruction.  Elihu Root, meanwhile, became an imperialist who later advocated entry by the United States  into the League of Nations.

'''6.'''  '''Sacco and Vanzetti''' were two anarchists from Italy.  Anarchists believe in a dangerous philosophy that there should be '''''no''''' government, and some anarchists believe in the overthrow of any established ruling entity.  These anarchists had dodged the draft for World War I and were tried in 1921 for an afternoon robbery and murder of a shoe factory paymaster and a security guard as they carried a $16,000 payroll.  Liberals in America decried trying individuals for their beliefs rather than their actions, and questions about the fairness of such a trial in Boston were raised from the beginning.  They had skilled defense counsel in a famous labor attorney, but no Italians were included in the jury (none may have been in the jury pool).  The defense counsel eliminated every businessman from the jury.

'''6.'''  '''Sacco and Vanzetti''' were two anarchists from Italy.  Anarchists believe in a dangerous philosophy that there should be '''''no''''' government, and some anarchists believe in the violent overthrow of any established ruling entity.  These anarchists had dodged the draft for World War I and were tried in 1921 for an afternoon robbery and murder of a shoe factory paymaster and a security guard as they carried a $16,000 payroll.  Liberals in America decried trying individuals for their beliefs rather than their actions, and questions about the fairness of such a trial in Boston were raised from the beginning.  They had skilled defense counsel in a famous labor attorney, but no Italians were included in the jury (none may have been in the jury pool).  The defense counsel eliminated every businessman from the jury.

Witnesses for the prosecution were weak, with one testifying that the murderer spoke good English (the defendants did not).  The prosecution only identified one bullet as being from Sacco’s gun, with no explanation as to the source of the other three bullets found at the scene.  The stolen money was never found.

Witnesses for the prosecution were weak, with one testifying that the murderer spoke good English (the defendants did not).  The prosecution only identified one bullet as being from Sacco’s gun, with no explanation as to the source of the other three bullets found at the scene.  The stolen money was never found.

Vanzetti, who sported a distinctive handlebar mustache, maintained his innocence to the end.  His final words to the judge before execution were these:

Vanzetti, who sported a distinctive handlebar mustache, maintained his innocence to the end.  His final words to the judge before execution were these:

“I would not wish to [a dog or snake] what I have had to suffer for things that I am not guilty of. But my conviction is that I have suffered for things that I am guilty of. I am suffering because I am a radical and indeed I am a radical; I have suffered because I was an Italian, and indeed I am an Italian; I have suffered more for my family and for my beloved than for myself; but I am so convinced to be right that if you could execute me two times, and if I could be reborn two other times, I would live again to do what I have done already.”  Not entirely convincing, is it?

“I would not wish to [a dog or snake] what I have had to suffer for things that I am not guilty of. But my conviction is that I have suffered for things that I am guilty of. I am suffering because I am a radical and indeed I am a radical; I have suffered because I was an Italian, and indeed I am an Italian; I have suffered more for my family and for my beloved than for myself; but I am so convinced to be right that if you could execute me two times, and if I could be reborn two other times, I would live again to do what I have done already.”  Does that persuade you of his innocence?

Among liberals, sympathy has continued for Sacco and Vanzetti ever since.  Much is made of a confession by another death row inmate to having perpetrated the crime.  But the judge found that unreliable.  However, the judge had earlier criticized a jury for acquitting an anarchist, and seemed determined to do what he could to end anarchy in America.

Among liberals, sympathy has continued for Sacco and Vanzetti ever since.  Much is made of a confession by another death row inmate to having perpetrated the crime.  But the judge found that unreliable.  But the judge did not seem to be entirely impartial; earlier he had criticized a jury for acquitting an anarchist, and seemed determined to do what he could to end anarchy in America.

Fifty years after the executions of Sacco and Vanzetti, in 1977, Massachusetts Democratic governor and future presidential candidate Michael Dukakis signed a resolution apologizing to them and establishing a day in honor of them.  However, he did not pardon them, and many remain convinced of their guilt.  Dukakis’ soft position on crime was a major reason for his defeat by the first President George Bush in 1988.

Fifty years after the executions of Sacco and Vanzetti, in 1977, Massachusetts Democratic governor and future presidential candidate Michael Dukakis signed a resolution apologizing to them and establishing a day in honor of them.  However, he did not pardon them, and many remain convinced of their guilt.  Dukakis’ soft position on crime was a major reason for his defeat by the first President George Bush in 1988.

'''7.'''  '''John Scopes''' was just a young teacher in Tennessee when he unwittingly became a test case for promoting evolution in American schools.  Tennessee had a law against teaching human evolution, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) wanted to overturn it.  It enlisted the top criminal attorney of the day, Clarence Darrow, to serve as Scopes attorney.  As crafty as the day is long, he arrived in Tennessee armed with his bag of tricks.

'''7.'''  '''John Scopes''' was just a young teacher in Tennessee when he unwittingly became a test case for promoting evolution in American schools.  Tennessee had a law against teaching human evolution, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) wanted to overturn it.  It enlisted the top criminal attorney of the day, Clarence Darrow, to serve as Scopes attorney.  As crafty as the day is long, he arrived in Tennessee armed with his bag of tricks.

William Jennings Bryan, the former presidential candidate and Secretary of State, had oratorical skills second to known.  His “Cross of Gold” nomination acceptance speech in 1896 is considered one of the greatest political works in American history.  He united the Populist and Democratic Parties then and laid the foundation for the takeover by the Democratic Party of American politics 36 years later.

William Jennings Bryan, the former presidential candidate and Secretary of State, had oratorical skills second to none.  His “Cross of Gold” nomination acceptance speech in 1896 is considered one of the greatest political works in American history.  He united the Populist and Democratic Parties then and laid the foundation for the takeover by the Democratic Party of American politics 36 years later.

After witnessing the horrors of World War I, Bryan became convinced that the teaching of evolution was leading society to ruination through war.  “Survival of the fittest” provided an intellectual justification for the brutal killing of other nationalities and races.  Bryan foresaw the ethnic cleansing that grew to its horrible culmination in the Holocaust.

After witnessing the horrors of World War I, Bryan became convinced that the teaching of evolution was leading society to ruination through war.  “Survival of the fittest” provided an intellectual justification for the brutal killing of other nationalities and races.  Bryan foresaw the ethnic cleansing that grew to its horrible culmination in the Holocaust.