Post by: Little Joe on March 18, 2016, 06:52:54 AM
Has he ever been in charge of anything that was a success? Has he accomplished anything positive?
You guys speak of Trump's "angry white" supporters. Who is any whiter or angrier than Cruz supporters?
Yeah, he talks a good game. He had good grades in college. But what besides the scripted words that come out of his mouth make him any better than Obama?
I'm, willing to listen in case you can show me something I don't know about him.
Post by: acrogimp on March 18, 2016, 07:28:08 AM
He was a successful Solicitor General for the State of Texas, argued in front of the Supreme Court nine times (Death Penalty, State Rights, Voting Rights Act, US Sovereignty).
For more: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/ted-cruz-argued-before-the-us-supreme-court-nine-times-heres-what-happened/
That is most of what I would consider success for him since he has struggled to get anything done (or not done) in his short time in the Senate where it seems almost everybody from both sides can't stand him and as a result won't work with him.
This is why it is so frustrating for me that he is such a poor candidate and has demonstrated such terrible judgement during the campaign. I WANT to like Cruz because on paper he is THE guy, but in real life he is some odd hybrid between Mr. Haney, Eddie Munster, a tent revival preacher and the worst caricature of the evil win-at-all-costs conservative that populate pop-culture.
'Gimp
Post by: Little Joe on March 18, 2016, 07:34:26 AM
From your link:
Quote
Over nine trips to the Supreme Court, Cruz clearly lost four cases and won two. The other three rulings were less clear-cut.
I too wanted to like him, and to find something that may remotely qualify him to be President, but so far I have come up empty.
Post by: nddons on March 18, 2016, 07:43:51 AM
Tell me something that Cruz has accomplished that might make me respect him, or make me think that he can improve anything in any way.
Has he ever been in charge of anything that was a success? Has he accomplished anything positive?
You guys speak of Trump's "angry white" supporters. Who is any whiter or angrier than Cruz supporters?
Yeah, he talks a good game. He had good grades in college. But what besides the scripted words that come out of his mouth make him any better than Obama?
I'm, willing to listen in case you can show me something I don't know about him.
It's pretty easy to find, but I'll give you a few off the top of my head:
Cruz clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist. In legal circles, that's some rarified air right there.
Cruz has authored 70 USSC briefs, presented 43 oral arguments, including 9 before the USSC while Solicitor General of the state of Texas. He won 5 and lost 4 of those cases.
He authored the amicus brief in District of Columbia v Heller that was signed by 31 state Attorneys General.
In the Senate, Cruz actually kept his promises to his constituents and pushed back against the "Surrender Caucus" led by McConnell, who promptly gave Obama everything they wanted. He called out McConnell for lying to him by hiding the reauthorization in another bill, and tried to hold other Senators to their conservative promises.
To date he has authored 25 bills, including prohibiting the use of drones to kill US citizens, a bill to permit states to require proof of citizenship for registering to vote, etc.
He was also in private law practice for a number of years.
Post by: Lucifer on March 18, 2016, 08:08:08 AM
http://www.lawyerherald.com/articles/28942/20160122/ted-cruzs-private-practice-lawyer-reveals-work-defending-tort-cases.htm
http://www.thetrace.org/2016/02/ted-cruz-gun-rights-record/
http://www.westernjournalism.com/trey-gowdy-saw-something-that-enraged-him-and-just-unleashed-on-ted-cruz-outright-lies/
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/10/us/politics/cuban-peers-dispute-ted-cruzs-fathers-story-of-fighting-for-castro.html
And much more. Google is your friend.
Post by: Little Joe on March 18, 2016, 08:20:42 AM
It's pretty easy to find, but I'll give you a few off the top of my head:That is all good stuff, and it would probably be good experience for some sort of support position, like cabinet member, adviser or even Supreme Court Justice. But I don't seen any sort of evidence of leadership potential. I feel if he gets to be President, it would be the ultimate evidence of the Peter Principle.
Cruz clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist. In legal circles, that's some rarified air right there.
Cruz has authored 70 USSC briefs, presented 43 oral arguments, including 9 before the USSC while Solicitor General of the state of Texas. He won 5 and lost 4 of those cases.
He authored the amicus brief in District of Columbia v Heller that was signed by 31 state Attorneys General.
In the Senate, Cruz actually kept his promises to his constituents and pushed back against the "Surrender Caucus" led by McConnell, who promptly gave Obama everything they wanted. He called out McConnell for lying to him by hiding the reauthorization in another bill, and tried to hold other Senators to their conservative promises.
To date he has authored 25 bills, including prohibiting the use of drones to kill US citizens, a bill to permit states to require proof of citizenship for registering to vote, etc.
He was also in private law practice for a number of years.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on March 18, 2016, 08:24:39 AM
I feel if he gets to be President, it would be the ultimate evidence of the Peter Principle.
Obama already proved it.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on March 18, 2016, 05:05:48 PM
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
Natural born citizens do not need to be "naturalized" as Cruz was. Ipso Facto, done.
Post by: JeffDG on March 18, 2016, 05:08:25 PM
Since Cruz was not born on USA soil he is completely ineligible to be President.Cruz was a US citizen by virtue of his birth. He was never naturalized.
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
Natural born citizens do not need to be "naturalized" as Cruz was. Ipso Facto, done.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on March 18, 2016, 06:09:34 PM
Cruz was a US citizen by virtue of his birth. He was never naturalized.
Just as the Libs parse the term "illegal immigrant" to apply to ALL immigrants, Cruz is not a "natural-born US citizen" which means he was born on this soil. THAT is the difference between mere citizenship by virtue of your parents citizenship, and being born on US ground. It's supposed to be a more stringent requirement.
Post by: JeffDG on March 18, 2016, 06:16:13 PM
Just as the Libs parse the term "illegal immigrant" to apply to ALL immigrants, Cruz is not a "natural-born US citizen" which means he was born on this soil. THAT is the difference between mere citizenship by virtue of your parents citizenship, and being born on US ground. It's supposed to be a more stringent requirement.Please cite a reference that "natural born" is "born on US soil"
Sen Cruz was, at the moment of his birth, a US citizen with no requirement for any intervening act (naturalization). By a plain text reading, he is an NBC.
Post by: Mase on March 18, 2016, 06:19:14 PM
Oh, wait....
Post by: JeffDG on March 18, 2016, 07:55:06 PM
Actually, Cruz was born in Hawaii.Nah, the Trumpkins will claim his mother had a C-Section next. Citing Macbeth as controlling precedent.
Oh, wait....
Post by: LevelWing on March 18, 2016, 10:04:38 PM
Since Cruz was not born on USA soil he is completely ineligible to be President.Ted Cruz was never naturalized. Because the Constitution did not define what "natural born" meant, the Naturalization Act of 1790 took care of that:
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
Natural born citizens do not need to be "naturalized" as Cruz was. Ipso Facto, done.
Quote from: Naturalization Act of 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.Most legal scholars agree that Ted Cruz is in fact eligible to run for president.
If you don't believe that Ted Cruz is eligible to run for president then I'm assuming you didn't think that John McCain was eligible to run, either?
http://www.indiana.edu/%7Ekdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html
Post by: Mase on March 18, 2016, 10:47:33 PM
If you don't believe that Ted Cruz is eligible to run for president then I'm assuming you didn't think that John McCain was eligible to run, either?
John McCain was actually born in Hawaii also.
Anyone who runs for President can be shown to have been born in Hawaii.
Post by: Number7 on March 19, 2016, 06:46:02 AM
Post by: Anthony on March 19, 2016, 06:51:47 AM
The saddest thing about the circular firing squad that is the republican party, is the unavoidable urge to attack anyone that might rock the boat. When every RINO in town, not to mention Mitch McConnell AND John Boehner hate you, you have truly earned my support.
Mine too. I almost dislike the RINO Republicans as much as I dislike the Democrats. At least the Democrats TELL you they are Democrats and have a socialist platform, although only Sanders, an Independent, uses the label.
Post by: nddons on March 19, 2016, 07:16:50 AM
The saddest thing about the circular firing squad that is the republican party, is the unavoidable urge to attack anyone that might rock the boat. When every RINO in town, not to mention Mitch McConnell AND John Boehner hate you, you have truly earned my support.
It is pathetic, isn't it? McConnell and Boehner are greater enemies to the Conservative movement than the entire Democrat party, as evidenced by their treatment of Cruz, their fight against Tea Party candidates who dared challenge GOP establishment incumbents, and their inability to advance conservative causes out of fear that they can't pander enough to make people like them.
Post by: Kristin on March 19, 2016, 07:07:25 PM
It's pretty easy to find, but I'll give you a few off the top of my head:
Cruz clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist. In legal circles, that's some rarified air right there.
Cruz has authored 70 USSC briefs, presented 43 oral arguments, including 9 before the USSC while Solicitor General of the state of Texas. He won 5 and lost 4 of those cases.
He authored the amicus brief in District of Columbia v Heller that was signed by 31 state Attorneys General.
In the Senate, Cruz actually kept his promises to his constituents and pushed back against the "Surrender Caucus" led by McConnell, who promptly gave Obama everything they wanted. He called out McConnell for lying to him by hiding the reauthorization in another bill, and tried to hold other Senators to their conservative promises.
To date he has authored 25 bills, including prohibiting the use of drones to kill US citizens, a bill to permit states to require proof of citizenship for registering to vote, etc.
He was also in private law practice for a number of years.
Just because Poindexter is conservative, doesn't make him a leader. Lawyers hole up in the library to write briefs. Any team aspect is limited to ordering first year lawyers to look stuff up. Being the intellectual lackey to a SCOTUS justice doesn't make you a leader. Someone who stands up and yells: NO! to his colleagues in the Senate is not a leader.
Cruz wrote a lot. Obama shook a lot of hands. Obama got elected POTUS. Cruz will not.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on March 20, 2016, 03:50:01 AM
Ted Cruz was never naturalized. Because the Constitution did not define what "natural born" meant, the Naturalization Act of 1790 took care of that:
Most legal scholars agree that Ted Cruz is in fact eligible to run for president.
If you don't believe that Ted Cruz is eligible to run for president then I'm assuming you didn't think that John McCain was eligible to run, either?
http://www.indiana.edu/%7Ekdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html
McCain was born on US soil.
Was Cruz's father a citizen when young Rafael was born? Doesn't appear to. The Act (at least the part copied here) is somewhat ambiguous regarding whether or not either/both parents must be citizens (it does say citizens plural) but it does specifies the FATHER must have resided and that assumes the FATHER was a citizen at the time of the child's birth. So it may be deduced that the Father's status determines the 'natural born' category. Remember at the time it was written women didn't have the same level of protections and the society was very paternal.
Incidentally, if what I wrote holds up to logical analysis, Obama wasn't eligible to be president either.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on March 20, 2016, 03:50:57 AM
Mine too. I almost dislike the RINO Republicans as much as I dislike the Democrats. At least the Democrats TELL you they are Democrats and have a socialist platform, although only Sanders, an Independent, uses the label.
Traitors are always worse than enemies.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on March 20, 2016, 03:53:12 AM
It is pathetic, isn't it? McConnell and Boehner are greater enemies to the Conservative movement than the entire Democrat party, as evidenced by their treatment of Cruz, their fight against Tea Party candidates who dared challenge GOP establishment incumbents, and their inability to advance conservative causes out of fear that they can't pander enough to make people like them.
Rubio, who was the GOP darling until he bailed, was elected to the Senate as a Tea Party endorsed candidate.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on March 20, 2016, 03:55:12 AM
Just because Poindexter is conservative, doesn't make him a leader. Lawyers hole up in the library to write briefs. Any team aspect is limited to ordering first year lawyers to look stuff up. Being the intellectual lackey to a SCOTUS justice doesn't make you a leader. Someone who stands up and yells: NO! to his colleagues in the Senate is not a leader.
Cruz wrote a lot. Obama shook a lot of hands. Obama got elected POTUS. Cruz will not.
I will heartily endorse Cruz to the Supreme Court when President Trump nominates him.
Post by: Anthony on March 20, 2016, 04:27:41 AM
Rubio, who was the GOP darling until he bailed, was elected to the Senate as a Tea Party endorsed candidate.
And then promptly sold out to the establishment.
Post by: Kristin on March 20, 2016, 06:11:35 PM
I will heartily endorse Cruz to the Supreme Court when President Trump nominates him.
An unlikely confluence of events.
Ideologues do not follow the Constitution. They just come up with clever ways to spin it to support their policy objectives. Precisely what conservatives say they don't want, but of course do if they agree with the ideologue.
Post by: nddons on March 21, 2016, 02:39:22 PM
An unlikely confluence of events.
Ideologues do not follow the Constitution. They just come up with clever ways to spin it to support their policy objectives. Precisely what conservatives say they don't want, but of course do if they agree with the ideologue.
Right. So a Constitutional ideologue has clever ways to spin something to support what - on originalist view of the Constitution?
Post by: Kristin on March 21, 2016, 04:50:48 PM
Right. So a Constitutional ideologue has clever ways to spin something to support what - on originalist view of the Constitution?
There is no such thing as a constitutional ideologue. Cruz certainly is not one. Scalia wasn't either. Nobody grows up being taught right from wrong based on just the Constitution.
Scalia used original intent as the handiest way to support his reactionary views. I actually think that the court needed that input, even though Scalia was hewing true to his Italian Catholic upbringing. That is why we don't just have just one justice. I like that we have liberals on the court too. As long as they all are very, very loath to override previous precedents and make their decisions as narrow as possible.
Post by: LevelWing on March 21, 2016, 08:50:32 PM
That is why we don't just have just one justice. I like that we have liberals on the court too. As long as they all are very, very loath to override previous precedents and make their decisions as narrow as possible.Except that's not what they do. They make rulings that have consequences for everyone and they aren't always the right decisions.
The Constitution is the basis for law in this country. It's also more than that as it doesn't grant rights but rather places limits on the government. You know, that whole "for the people, by the people" concept. There are so many issues that don't need to be at the federal level yet we have political candidates on both sides running around talking about how they'll fix issue X or issue Y when it's a state issue. Cruz, as far as I'm aware, is the only one who's said that certain issues are states issues when asked about them.
Post by: nddons on March 21, 2016, 08:56:09 PM
There is no such thing as a constitutional ideologue. Cruz certainly is not one. Scalia wasn't either. Nobody grows up being taught right from wrong based on just the Constitution.Scalia had "reactionary views"? Such as?
Scalia used original intent as the handiest way to support his reactionary views. I actually think that the court needed that input, even though Scalia was hewing true to his Italian Catholic upbringing. That is why we don't just have just one justice. I like that we have liberals on the court too. As long as they all are very, very loath to override previous precedents and make their decisions as narrow as possible.
Post by: Number7 on March 22, 2016, 07:11:49 AM
There is no such thing as a constitutional ideologue. Cruz certainly is not one. Scalia wasn't either. Nobody grows up being taught right from wrong based on just the Constitution.
Scalia used original intent as the handiest way to support his reactionary views. I actually think that the court needed that input, even though Scalia was hewing true to his Italian Catholic upbringing. That is why we don't just have just one justice. I like that we have liberals on the court too. As long as they all are very, very loath to override previous precedents and make their decisions as narrow as possible.
It is clear that you are attempting to paint everyone who has solid, constructionist views as 'reactionary,' and unfit to serve as president.
Carry on but know that it is rather transparent and tiresome.
Post by: Kristin on March 22, 2016, 12:44:10 PM
Except that's not what they do. They make rulings that have consequences for everyone and they aren't always the right decisions.
The Constitution is the basis for law in this country. It's also more than that as it doesn't grant rights but rather places limits on the government. You know, that whole "for the people, by the people" concept. There are so many issues that don't need to be at the federal level yet we have political candidates on both sides running around talking about how they'll fix issue X or issue Y when it's a state issue. Cruz, as far as I'm aware, is the only one who's said that certain issues are states issues when asked about them.
OMG! You are telling me that humans are always right! Are you sure! So how are you going to fix that? Replace them with a computer?
Whether the federal government is too big is a separate issue from who sits on the SCOTUS. However, I happen to agree with that and it is one thing that Cruz says that I do agree with. Unfortunately, like most conservatives, he is a hypocrite on the subject. He would happily have the federal government ban abortions, preferably through a constitutional amendment. He really only wants to trim the federal government when it does things he doesn't like.
Post by: Lucifer on March 22, 2016, 12:52:01 PM
. He really only wants to trim the federal government when it does things he doesn't like.
A true statement.
Post by: Kristin on March 22, 2016, 12:53:40 PM
Scalia had "reactionary views"? Such as?
It is conservative to resist change. It is reactionary to try to wind the clock back. Scalia was always trying to wind the clock back in his dissents. Of course, when it suited him, he would abandon judicial modesty and original intent, for example in Citizens United. There is no doubt that the framers of the Constitution did not think that corporations were people with free speech rights. You can also look at his dissent on gay rights. The country as a whole has moved beyond that issue and he wants to wind back the clock and shove gays back in the closet. There are a few dozen more examples but that should suffice.
Post by: Kristin on March 22, 2016, 12:55:42 PM
It is clear that you are attempting to paint everyone who has solid, constructionist views as 'reactionary,' and unfit to serve as president.
Carry on but know that it is rather transparent and tiresome.
Don't read it is you find my views tiresome. Just put a boom box on each shoulder -- one blairing Rush and the other Sean -- and live in your own little bubble.
Post by: nddons on March 22, 2016, 01:04:25 PM
He really only wants to trim the federal government when it does things he doesn't like.
A true statement.Right. The one remaining candidate who supports an Article V Convention of the States to propose a balanced budget amendment doesn't want to trim the federal government.
Good one.
Post by: nddons on March 22, 2016, 01:07:23 PM
It is conservative to resist change. It is reactionary to try to wind the clock back. Scalia was always trying to wind the clock back in his dissents. Of course, when it suited him, he would abandon judicial modesty and original intent, for example in Citizens United. There is no doubt that the framers of the Constitution did not think that corporations were people with free speech rights. You can also look at his dissent on gay rights. The country as a whole has moved beyond that issue and he wants to wind back the clock and shove gays back in the closet. There are a few dozen more examples but that should suffice.I think the only reactionary here is you, using your definition.
Using the common definition, Scalia was not one.
Post by: JeffDG on March 22, 2016, 01:49:41 PM
There is no doubt that the framers of the Constitution did not think that corporations were people with free speech rights.Where, in the Constitution, are rights limited to "people"?
Free speech says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech". It doesn't say anything about people whatsoever, just that no law shall be made.
Put simply, people do not lose their rights for the exercise of other rights. Exercising your right to freedom of assembly (in the corporate form) does not waive your right to free speech.
Post by: nddons on March 22, 2016, 02:15:59 PM
Where, in the Constitution, are rights limited to "people"?
Free speech says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech". It doesn't say anything about people whatsoever, just that no law shall be made.
Put simply, people do not lose their rights for the exercise of other rights. Exercising your right to freedom of assembly (in the corporate form) does not waive your right to free speech.
REACTIONARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: Kristin on March 22, 2016, 03:59:54 PM
I think the only reactionary here is you, using your definition.
Using the common definition, Scalia was not one.
And what dictionary might you be using for that "common definition"?
Post by: Kristin on March 22, 2016, 04:04:07 PM
Right. The one remaining candidate who supports an Article V Convention of the States to propose a balanced budget amendment doesn't want to trim the federal government.
Good one.
A balanced budget amendment could either cut the size of the government or raise taxes. Cruz's support for a convention does not prove him to be a small government conservative. He may, however, be a conservative who would reduce the size of the government by cutting programs he doesn't like. That makes him a conservative, and does little to show him as dedicated to a smaller federal government -- first and foremost.
Post by: Kristin on March 22, 2016, 04:12:05 PM
Where, in the Constitution, are rights limited to "people"?
Free speech says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech". It doesn't say anything about people whatsoever, just that no law shall be made.
Put simply, people do not lose their rights for the exercise of other rights. Exercising your right to freedom of assembly (in the corporate form) does not waive your right to free speech.
That is the neat thing about the different ways of interpreting the constitution. If original intent doesn't support what you want to do, you can maybe make a textual argument.
Of course, we have always had laws abridging the freedom of speech. It always gets interesting when one person's exercise of a right, infringes on someone else's right.
It doesn't say in the constitution that someone can't be held response for libel or slander. It says in the Constitution that Congress can pass no law limiting the practice of their religion, but if a Muslim father sells his 13 y/o daughter into an arrangement marriage, he is going to jail.
The Constitution wasn't written to be taken as a comprehensive law book. It would have been hundreds of pages if it had been and it would be much easier to change it.
Post by: JeffDG on March 22, 2016, 04:17:23 PM
A balanced budget amendment could either cut the size of the government or raise taxes. Cruz's support for a convention does not prove him to be a small government conservative. He may, however, be a conservative who would reduce the size of the government by cutting programs he doesn't like. That makes him a conservative, and does little to show him as dedicated to a smaller federal government -- first and foremost.That depends on the form of a Balanced Budget Amendment.
Personally, I like the idea of a Cap and Balance Amendment. That would cap federal spending at a maximum percentage of GDP, and require that the budget be balanced. For example, Mark Levin's proposed BBA would limit spending to 17.5% of GDP, and require that receipts and expenditures be balanced.
Post by: JeffDG on March 22, 2016, 04:20:31 PM
That is the neat thing about the different ways of interpreting the constitution. If original intent doesn't support what you want to do, you can maybe make a textual argument.I don't care about "original intent". I support "original public meaning". Whatever the words meant, at the time they were inserted into the Constitution, is controlling. I don't cherry pick interpretative methods, I stick to one.
Of course, we have always had laws abridging the freedom of speech. It always gets interesting when one person's exercise of a right, infringes on someone else's right.Well, if you read the 1st Amendment, none of these are necessary. None of these need to be regulated by the federal government (Congress). The states handle defamation law quite well, along with the next strawman I expect, the fire in a crowded theatre.
It doesn't say in the constitution that someone can't be held response for libel or slander. It says in the Constitution that Congress can pass no law limiting the practice of their religion, but if a Muslim father sells his 13 y/o daughter into an arrangement marriage, he is going to jail.
The Constitution wasn't written to be taken as a comprehensive law book. It would have been hundreds of pages if it had been and it would be much easier to change it.No, it was written as a series of limitations on government.
Post by: Kristin on March 23, 2016, 01:19:11 PM
That depends on the form of a Balanced Budget Amendment.
Personally, I like the idea of a Cap and Balance Amendment. That would cap federal spending at a maximum percentage of GDP, and require that the budget be balanced. For example, Mark Levin's proposed BBA would limit spending to 17.5% of GDP, and require that receipts and expenditures be balanced.
Well, that would keep us out of wars. Probably a good thing. Of course, when GDP drops, the fed would have to cut spending. Cuts in spending would make the GDP drop more, requiring more cuts. More cuts would cut the GDP more, etc. What would prevent this economic graveyard spiral?
Post by: Kristin on March 23, 2016, 01:24:23 PM
I don't care about "original intent". I support "original public meaning". Whatever the words meant, at the time they were inserted into the Constitution, is controlling. I don't cherry pick interpretative methods, I stick to one.
Well, if you read the 1st Amendment, none of these are necessary. None of these need to be regulated by the federal government (Congress). The states handle defamation law quite well, along with the next strawman I expect, the fire in a crowded theatre.
No, it was written as a series of limitations on government.
How do we know what the "original public meaning" is unless we know the intent of the persons writing the words, or is it the persons voting on the words? Or perhaps the meaning assigned to it by the states that ratified it. You make a distinction without a difference.
The First Amendment applies to the states as well. That happened after the Civil War. Now what? So the state can't make or enforce a law against libel, etc?
This may all exist in your "world", but not in the one we actually live it.
Post by: JeffDG on March 23, 2016, 02:27:22 PM
How do we know what the "original public meaning" is unless we know the intent of the persons writing the words, or is it the persons voting on the words? Or perhaps the meaning assigned to it by the states that ratified it. You make a distinction without a difference.No, "original public meaning" has no dependency on the drafters or ratifiers intent. It simply means you take the works for their widely accepted meanings at the time they were adopted. At it's base, it requires a contemporaneous dictionary.
The First Amendment applies to the states as well. That happened after the Civil War. Now what? So the state can't make or enforce a law against libel, etc?For the most part, state legislatures have not made laws against defamation. They are torts rooted in common law.
This may all exist in your "world", but not in the one we actually live it.
Post by: Kristin on March 23, 2016, 06:03:03 PM
I haven't taken a survey of states that have codified much of common law, but California is one, represented about 12% of the country's population. Not that it would matter, as the Constitution bars using the instruments of state from enforcing the common law as well, when it runs contrary to the Constitution.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on March 23, 2016, 06:48:40 PM
Post by: Number7 on March 23, 2016, 06:54:33 PM
Don't read it is you find my views tiresome. Just put a boom box on each shoulder -- one blairing Rush and the other Sean -- and live in your own little bubble.
Tiresome doesn't describe your post. You are a progressive ideologue and seek to attack without substance, then cut and run.
Post by: JeffDG on March 23, 2016, 07:33:20 PM
Fortunately, your lens for examining the Constitution is your own, and not anyone else's, especially anyone who might count like a federal appellate judge. The SCOTUS just unanimously upheld the right to self-defense of a woman who was arrested for carrying a Taser to protect herself. Had they used your lens exclusively, I am sure that the 2nd Amendment would limit our protection to carrying flintlocks. Your view is entirely unworkable, but everyone is entitled to live in their own fantasy world as long as they don't hurt anyone else.
I haven't taken a survey of states that have codified much of common law, but California is one, represented about 12% of the country's population. Not that it would matter, as the Constitution bars using the instruments of state from enforcing the common law as well, when it runs contrary to the Constitution.
Actually, to take the right to keep and bear arms is pretty simple. Quite simply you read "bear arms" together, and that basically means that the people have the right to such arms (weapons) as they can carry (bear). So, swords, muskets, etc. all OK. Cannons, while often in private hands at the time of the founding could well be argued were not covered. Same meaning today. Handguns, rifles, tasers, etc. all good, all using the same original public meaning. Also covers the classic strawman of "The government can prohibit you from owning a nuke!" If you can design and build a nuke that you can carry yourself, be my guest. You have a higher intelligence level than 99% of MENSA membera. However, most nukes are not personal weapons.
Post by: nddons on March 23, 2016, 07:41:18 PM
Fortunately, your lens for examining the Constitution is your own, and not anyone else's, especially anyone who might count like a federal appellate judge. The SCOTUS just unanimously upheld the right to self-defense of a woman who was arrested for carrying a Taser to protect herself. Had they used your lens exclusively, I am sure that the 2nd Amendment would limit our protection to carrying flintlocks. Your view is entirely unworkable, but everyone is entitled to live in their own fantasy world as long as they don't hurt anyone else.
I haven't taken a survey of states that have codified much of common law, but California is one, represented about 12% of the country's population. Not that it would matter, as the Constitution bars using the instruments of state from enforcing the common law as well, when it runs contrary to the Constitution.
No, an Originalist would not limit "arms" to flintlocks. That makes you sound more like a lame anti-gun activist than a lawyer.
On the other hand, four liberal justices would have voted that the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms is not an individual right, so perhaps you're just in good liberal activist company.
Post by: Kristin on March 23, 2016, 07:41:59 PM
Me thinks Kristin is Militantly Liberal/Progressive.
Thank you for that! Now that you have resorted to name calling, I know that you have run out of ideas.
Post by: Kristin on March 23, 2016, 07:43:32 PM
Tiresome doesn't describe your post. You are a progressive ideologue and seek to attack without substance, then cut and run.
What about "Don't read my posts", don't you understand?
Post by: Kristin on March 23, 2016, 08:11:24 PM
Actually, to take the right to keep and bear arms is pretty simple. Quite simply you read "bear arms" together, and that basically means that the people have the right to such arms (weapons) as they can carry (bear). So, swords, muskets, etc. all OK. Cannons, while often in private hands at the time of the founding could well be argued were not covered. Same meaning today. Handguns, rifles, tasers, etc. all good, all using the same original public meaning. Also covers the classic strawman of "The government can prohibit you from owning a nuke!" If you can design and build a nuke that you can carry yourself, be my guest. You have a higher intelligence level than 99% of MENSA membera. However, most nukes are not personal weapons.
The problem is, that you don't really know what a dictionary in 1789 would say. Even if you did, the world isn't stuck in 1789. The Constitution was written in reasonably general terms and made difficult to amend. The truth is, if your view of Constitutional interpretation had been followed over the last 225+ years, you wouldn't like the world we would be living in. Most significantly, the States would be under no limitations with respect to its citizens life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I doubt that there are too many people that want to live in that that kind of world. I could go into many examples. All I have time to do is make some observations and suggest you educate yourself a bit on Constitutional law which has been evolving for 225+ years and continues to do so.
BTW, nuclear warheads can be made small enough to carry. They have been small enough to put into artillery shells for over 50 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Munition
The better interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is the one the SCOTUS made, that it was to support the right of self-defense. Thank goodness they found it to be an individual right. That interpretation needs to be defended.
Post by: Kristin on March 23, 2016, 08:17:46 PM
No, an Originalist would not limit "arms" to flintlocks. That makes you sound more like a lame anti-gun activist than a lawyer.
On the other hand, four liberal justices would have voted that the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms is not an individual right, so perhaps you're just in good liberal activist company.
Aww! Another voice surrendering on the issue and resorting to name calling. You have elevated it a bit as you don't seem to have been able to grasp the parts of my posts which makes quite clear that I support the SCOTUS's decision that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right. I have a few fights with my liberal Con Law professors, back in law school. We are just discussing the best way to protect that. Hoping for the unlikely event of a GOP win in the WH and maintaining control of the Senate is not a strategy that can be relied upon. That is wishful, magical thinking! The GOP needs a back up plan. That plan should have been to hold hearings on Garland and drag it out until the election in November was clearer. Then if they weren't likely to win the WH, then the should take Garland as the safe better than having Hillary nominate someone fair left.
Sorry for being pragmatic. I know that facts are prickly things when you are trying to wrap yourself in the purity of ideology.
Post by: LevelWing on March 23, 2016, 08:51:06 PM
The problem is, that you don't really know what a dictionary in 1789 would say.No, but we do have a lot of writings from that time, including a lot of writings by some of the prominent founders, such as the Federalist Papers which provide a lot of insight.
The better interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is the one the SCOTUS made, that it was to support the right of self-defense. Thank goodness they found it to be an individual right. That interpretation needs to be defended.The U.S. had just fought a war against an oppressive, tyrannical government and wanted to ensure no government could have that kind of control over the citizens again. The best way to ensure that the citizens had the right to freedom of speech (especially speech the political class didn't like) and the others was to ensure the people were armed.
Post by: Mase on March 23, 2016, 09:27:15 PM
That plan should have been to hold hearings on Garland and drag it out until the election in November was clearer. .
I agree that they went about this nomination in a clumsy, poor way. Not smart to tip your hand like that. They should have shut up and wait to see who the nominee was and then either do what you suggested, or just engage in foot dragging.
Post by: Kristin on March 23, 2016, 10:40:57 PM
No, but we do have a lot of writings from that time, including a lot of writings by some of the prominent founders, such as the Federalist Papers which provide a lot of insight.
Right! That goes to original intent, which I consider one of the most important ways that the Constitution should be looked at JeffDG argues that what the founders meant to say is irrelevant, only what the words say. I am disagreeing with him. The actual words have a place, but it is not as important as the intent and the principle behind the words. The fact that the Constitution was written to be a check on tyrannical government is a key principle.
The U.S. had just fought a war against an oppressive, tyrannical government and wanted to ensure no government could have that kind of control over the citizens again. The best way to ensure that the citizens had the right to freedom of speech (especially speech the political class didn't like) and the others was to ensure the people were armed.
I agree with that. While I do think that there can be some limits, acceptable limits do not include bans on so-called assault weapons, restrictions on magazine sizes, carrying concealed, or the government keeping a database on who owns guns. I also don't want the government to have access to the records that would show who bought guns. As it stands now, I think that the government can go into our credit card records, etc, and see if we have purchased a gun or ammunition. I am afraid that the Patriot Act gave them that right.
Post by: Mase on March 23, 2016, 10:53:04 PM
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on March 24, 2016, 04:42:21 AM
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on March 24, 2016, 06:16:10 AM
Right! That goes to original intent, which I consider one of the most important ways that the Constitution should be looked at JeffDG argues that what the founders meant to say is irrelevant, only what the words say. I am disagreeing with him. The actual words have a place, but it is not as important as the intent and the principle behind the words. The fact that the Constitution was written to be a check on tyrannical government is a key principle.
I agree with that. While I do think that there can be some limits, acceptable limits do not include bans on so-called assault weapons, restrictions on magazine sizes, carrying concealed, or the government keeping a database on who owns guns. I also don't want the government to have access to the records that would show who bought guns. As it stands now, I think that the government can go into our credit card records, etc, and see if we have purchased a gun or ammunition. I am afraid that the Patriot Act gave them that right.
Most places you have to provide a drivers license to buy ammo.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on March 24, 2016, 06:30:28 AM
Most places you have to provide a drivers license to buy ammo.
Not in Massachusetts.
(you have to have an FID or LTC - the drivers license isn't necessary). :-)
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on March 24, 2016, 07:27:14 AM
Not in Massachusetts.
Really? You walk into Dick's for a box of 9MM and don't have to show proof of age?
(you have to have an FID or LTC - the drivers license isn't necessary). :-)
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on March 24, 2016, 07:55:10 AM
Really? You walk into Dick's for a box of 9MM and don't have to show proof of age?
The FID or LTC is all that is needed.
Kind of cheating because the FID and LTC have age requirements.
I'm sure my physical appearance as an old bald guy has nothing to do with not needing to show proof of age. :-)
However, I admit I don't know about Dick's Sporting Goods store rules. I don't buy my 9mm ammo there. I have a local gun store less than 5 miles from my house. I'm not even sure where the closest Dick's is.
Post by: Number7 on March 24, 2016, 08:50:24 AM
What about "Don't read my posts", don't you understand?
The part where I am obligated to ignore your progressive nonsense and not comment. Play with yourself all you want, but you don't to decided who is allowed to comment back. If that is your desire the playthings currently running POA are custom made for you.
Post by: Kristin on March 24, 2016, 01:50:32 PM
You're not going to convince a militant Liberal/Progressive who thinks the Constitution should be molded to fit their interpretation.
Not nearly as hard as convincing someone who is fundamentally ignorant about history and constitutional law that the Constitution has been molded for 225 years. Original Intent as the SOLE means for interpreting the Constitution is a ship that has long since sailed.
Post by: Kristin on March 24, 2016, 01:54:00 PM
The part where I am obligated to ignore your progressive nonsense and not comment. Play with yourself all you want, but you don't to decided who is allowed to comment back. If that is your desire the playthings currently running POA are custom made for you.
I was just giving you a solution to protect your delicate little feelings that may get hurt if you are exposed to any actual facts. I am worried that you can't handle the truth. But it is your own heart to risk. Just promise me you won't kick the dog in your self-generated outrage.
Post by: LevelWing on March 24, 2016, 08:47:22 PM
Most places you have to provide a drivers license to buy ammo.I've never had to show my ID in most southwestern states.