Ted Cruz does not endorse Trump Based on Principles
Aside from the issues and facts that Mark presents; what about the constitutional values we expect our presidents, our presidential candidates and our representatives to pledge unswerving dedication to...their fortunes, their most sacred honor or their lives to. Isn't that much more important than the "Party"?
I have to laugh even though it's a bit sicking, they booed when Cruz said: "Vote your conscience" "Vote for the candidate you trust and a candidate that will adhere to the constitution.
Kind of makes one think. By the way...that pledge?...was discarded March 29th by the Don himself...
We find ourselves here in these times because we haven't adhered to the constitution...have we not?
I have to laugh even though it's a bit sicking, they booed when Cruz said: "Vote your conscience" "Vote for the candidate you trust and a candidate that will adhere to the constitution.
Kind of makes one think. By the way...that pledge?...was discarded March 29th by the Don himself...
We find ourselves here in these times because we haven't adhered to the constitution...have we not?
Previous comments...
2. Once you have given your word, if you have any integrity at all, you keep it.
3. Kasich is as guilty as Cruz.
I should have said STUPID a bit louder ;-)
That said, the real stupidity is going on right now at the D convention. Not one of them know TANSTAAFL and they all promise it!
There should never be more than One ideology in America...the constitution as intended. Period.
The only differences should be how the government will defend us...the only valid reason and constitutionally enumerated for a Federal government.
AN ABSTENTION FROM VOTING FOR TRUMP, FOR ANY REASON! IS A VOTE FOR HILARY
END OF DISCUSSION !!!
Regarding marriage, I agree with everything that you said in your last paragraph. I also agree with your earlier statement that state marriage licensing is “a usurpation of authority they never had.” Based on these statements, how in the world can you defend Cruz’s siding with Kim Davis “asserting the role of arbiter over which marriages are valid and which are invalid”?? What you’re saying is that her actions violate the First Amendment. What I’m saying is that they violate the 14th Amendment. Either way they violate the Constitution that Ted Cruz claims to uphold.
" how in the world can you defend Cruz’s siding with Kim Davis..."
If you agree that the Federal government has no business in marriage, then you void the Supreme Court ruling that started coercing States like Kentucky, forcing them to issue marriage licenses. It's that simple. And just in case you don't understand the legality of the case, I'll lay it out for you. Kim Davis was a duly elected representative of the State of Kentucky as a County Clerk. And in Kentucky, marriage licenses held the signature of the County Clerk at the bottom. Now to me and to her, if you put your signature on something it means that you agree with it. She didn't. So she refused to issue marriage licenses. And BTW - she was taken to the Supreme Court of Kentucky and they acquitted her - recognizing that she was obeying State law AND the law of her own conscience and that the voters could certainly petition for a recall election - something that never happened. The Kim Davis case is all about the heavy hand of the Federal Government intervening where it had no Constitutional authority solely to push an agenda. You may agree with the agenda, but the method should have been for Congress to pass a Constitutional Amendment - ratified by the States - granting explicit authority over the definition of marriage to the Federal Government and not to use the Courts to do an end-run around the will of the people.
Furthermore, as I have already shown, the Fourteenth Amendment is a red herring even if the Federal Government were to have jurisdiction. In order to show its applicability, you must demonstrate that there is no difference between heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage. To do that, you must deny that sex/gender exists in total violation of chromosomal and physiological reality. Ergo: there is no demonstration of equivalency and therefore it is entirely non-discriminatory to treat the two circumstances (actually at least three as a gay marriage is certainly different than a lesbian one) differently.
And I beg to differ with you that the Fourteenth overrides the Tenth. That's nonsense. The Amendments work in conjunction with each other unless they explicitly cite otherwise as in the case of the Eighteenth and Twenty-First Amendments. Or would you claim that the Fourteenth overrides the First Amendment as well? Or the Second?
The Supreme Court did not force Kentucky or any other state to issue marriage licenses. They were already doing so, just as states were already providing public schools in the 1950s when the Supreme Court ruled that they could not be segregated by race. Kentucky could have quit issuing marriage licenses altogether, but chose not to do so.
Your “no equivalency” argument does not apply to same-sex marriage any more than it applies to interracial marriage, which the Supreme Court properly overturned state bans on decades ago. Going by your logic, states should have the power to ban interracial marriages because there is “no equivalency” between same-race and mixed-race marriage, because to say otherwise would deny that racial differences exist “in total violation of chromosomal and physiological reality” – ergo: there is no demonstration of equivalency and therefore it is entirely non-discriminatory to treat the two circumstances (actually at least three as a black man-white woman marriage is certainly different than a white man-black woman one) differently. Does this argument make any sense from a Constitution standpoint?
Furthermore, the bulk of the privileges conferred by states to married couples (such as tax status, inheritance rights, immunity from testifying against spouse) are unrelated to the gender of the participants, so the “no equivalency” argument is meaningless. It would be like saying there is “no equivalency” between a sales contract for a car and a sales contract for a truck, because cars and trucks are different from each other.
The rest of your first paragraph is a misstatement of everything else I wrote. Please go back and read it again. I did not say that the Federal government has no business protecting Constitutional rights. You are inferring that there exists a right to marry which does not and never has existed. Rights are individual and inherent - never granted by contract or expressed as groups.
"The Supreme Court did not force Kentucky..."
They forced upon them the issuance of licenses which were illegal according to existing State law and popular vote. And they did it by asserting authority they did not have.
"Kentucky could have quit issuing marriage licenses altogether, but chose not to do so."
Yes, they could have. And to me that would have solved the entire problem right there. The Federal Government used an existing overreach to justify their own overreach. Neither was acceptable, but at least the State governments can fall back on the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to try to claim legitimacy. The Federal Government is specifically excluded on the basis of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments and has no legitimacy whatsoever.
"Your “no equivalency” argument does not apply to same-sex marriage any more than it applies to interracial marriage"
You don't want it to, but it does nonetheless. The whole purpose behind marriage was a pairing of complementary (i.e. opposite) sexes for the purpose of procreation. It is not marriage without this complementary pairing. Skin color doesn't prevent procreation. Having non-complementary sexes does. The attempts by homosexual advocacy groups to make the issue of gay marriage equivalent to the civil rights movement is wholly fallacious. It is only the redefinition of marriage AFTER THE FACT which enables one to attempt to employ the equivalency of gay marriage to interracial marriage at all! That's a tremendous logical fallacy because it asserts an altered definition as its own proof!
"Furthermore, the bulk of the privileges conferred by states to married couples (such as tax status, inheritance rights, immunity from testifying against spouse) are unrelated to the gender of the participants..."
I won't go into the fact that you are arguing the supremacy of government vs the supremacy of the individual, but I will point out that you ignore the basic fact about why society cares about the formation of the family in the first place! Society does not continue without procreation first of all. Homosexuality is self-defeating and destructive to society in that regard. Next we deal with the quality of society and study after study affirms that children who grow up in a home comprised of their biological parents (mother and father) become the most productive citizens statistically. So society has a very vested self-interest in promulgating and encouraging traditional family formation in pursuance of its own prosperity!
Regarding lack of federal authority over marriage, there is an equal lack of federal authority over education. So by your logic, states would have the perfect right to segregate their schools by race and the federal government would have no power or responsibility to intervene.
The feds are not “forcing the majority of Americans to adopt a stance which directly contradicts their religious values.” Individual Americans can adopt any “stance” they please. What the feds are doing, properly, is prohibiting states from forcing the religious values of the majority on the rest of their citizens. The states are free at any time to get out of the marriage license business entirely.
I am not inferring that there is a “right to marry.” I am saying that there is a Constitutional right for citizens of each state to be given equal treatment under the law by their state and local governments. That pesky 14th Amendment again.
Re: “The whole purpose behind marriage was a pairing of complementary (i.e. opposite) sexes for the purpose of procreation.” Sounds like what I heard from the church during my Catholic upbringing; it certainly has no Constitutional relevance. Pairing for procreation can take place with or without marriage. And I guess your statement means that marriage is not an option for infertile or elderly couples. Maybe states should require fertility tests for marriage. Would you would consider such a test to be Constitutional?
"Regarding lack of federal authority over marriage, there is an equal lack of federal authority over education."
I agree. The federal government has no authority over education and shouldn't be involved whatsoever. No "No Child Left Behind". No education subsidies. No school lunch (and now breakfast) programs. No Department of Education - unless solely as a voluntary advisory board to gather and promulgate best practices and success stories.
"So by your logic, states would have the perfect right to segregate their schools by race and the federal government would have no power or responsibility to intervene."
One can only legally "intervene" where one has authority to do so. It doesn't make it right for the States to engage in racism in public schooling, but one wrong doesn't justify another. Does the United States have any right to tell China how to run its country even though they have nothing even close to a First Amendment? No. Why? Because we lack authority. Does the United States have the authority to depose Syrian President Bashar Assad? No. We can demonstrate a good example, but the second you allow one entity to usurp authority over another even for an ostensibly good cause you create the monster our Federal Government has become. The Welfare State is another perfect example of this.
"What the feds are doing, properly, is prohibiting states from forcing the religious values of the majority on the rest of their citizens."
Um, no. What they are doing is forcing a religious value (one which promotes homosexual unions) on the rest of us in direct violation of the First Amendment. They are establishing a State religion or religious philosophy. Why anyone on this site would advocate for greater Governmental control is beyond me.
Don't believe me? Look at Canada, who very recently published laws which would violate our First Amendment saying that not even pastors or religious authorities can speak about their beliefs if they contradict homosexual unions on pain of "hate crimes" penalties. That should cause any free thinking person who values individual rights to pause, because that very notion has already been brought up as legislation in our own House and Senate (it was voted down in Committee).
"I am saying that there is a Constitutional right for citizens of each state to be given equal treatment under the law."
I agree with you. What I demonstrated is that the Fourteenth does not apply - and for several reasons.
Infertility is the sign of a defective bodily system - not a legal precedent. Nor does it preclude couples from adopting. Marriage deals with the possibility - not the guarantee. Marriage is all about a lifelong commitment to one's spouse and children. Sex is only a part of that. Too many people - especially homosexuals - want to make it about the act rather than recognize that the act is an act of commitment. Why are STD's such a huge - and growing - problem? Because marriage has been deemed irrelevant.
Again, my position is to do away with marriage licenses entirely and let people police themselves. That gives greatest latitude to the First Amendment and properly restricts government's role in something they shouldn't be involved with in the first place. That was precisely the case Ted Cruz laid out and I find that case to be on very solid Constitutional grounds.
Issuing a marriage license to a gay couple is not an initiation of force, even if it offends the religious sensibilities of certain social conservatives. It does not “promote” anything; if it did, then issuing marriage licenses to heterosexual couples would likewise establish a State religion and “force a religious value on the rest of us in direct violation of the First Amendment.”
Re: “Why anyone on this site would advocate for greater Governmental control is beyond me.”
Why anyone on this site would be okay with state and local governments violating the rights of their citizens is beyond me. The issue is not greater government control, the issue is whether a higher level of government should intervene to protect its citizens from violations of their individual rights by lower levels of government. Do you really believe that members of racial minorities should have no recourse if their state or local governments practice racial discrimination? This site is about individual rights, not the “rights” of states to do just about anything they please because the Constitution allegedly allows them to do so.
It is an initiation of force and usurpation of power to mandate the need of a marriage license and to impose one's self as the arbiter of such claims. Again, my policy suggestion is to do away with marriage licensing altogether.
"Why anyone on this site would be okay with state and local governments violating the rights of their citizens is beyond me."
Show me the right you are talking about and I'll agree with you. Again: rights are individual - not collective. Furthermore, one person's engagement in a contract can not impose conditions on a third party without their consent. THAT is coercion. And that is precisely what is happening in Europe and Canada as the right to free speech and free association is being trampled upon by proponents of gay marriage.
"Do you really believe that members of racial minorities should have no recourse"
No. You invented those words and put them in my mouth. I did not say them. You were the one who tried to bring up and impose a false analogy to support your position. I simply pointed out that the analogy was false.
You claim I “invented” those words and put them in your mouth, and that it’s a false analogy. I intended it not as an analogy, but rather as an actual example based on your earlier statements. Earlier you said, “One can only legally ‘intervene’ where one has authority to do so. It doesn't make it right for the States to engage in racism in public schooling, but one wrong doesn't justify another.” I interpret these statements to mean that you believe the Supreme Court’s 1954 decision outlawing segregation in public schools was wrong – please let me know if I am incorrect. If the Supreme Court decision had gone the other way, African-Americans would have had no recourse to rectify this injustice. African-American children would have been compelled to continue attending inferior schools (private as well as public schools, thanks to “Jim Crow” laws mandating segregation in private as well as public businesses).
Re my statement: "Why anyone on this site would be okay with state and local governments violating the rights of their citizens is beyond me."
You replied: “Show me the right you are talking about and I'll agree with you. Again: rights are individual - not collective.” The “Jim Crow” laws across the South and elsewhere are a perfect example of the violation of individual rights by state governments. They mandated racial segregation in both public and private schools within their jurisdiction, as well as most other private businesses, thus violating the rights of private individuals to engage in certain activities, associations and contracts with private individuals of other races.
Re my statement: "Issuing a marriage license to a gay couple is not an initiation of force . . ."
You replied: “It is an initiation of force and usurpation of power to mandate the need of a marriage license and to impose one's self as the arbiter of such claims.” The state of Kentucky mandated the need of a marriage license, and Kim Davis imposed herself as the arbiter of whether or not a couple could obtain one. So by this standard, both the state of Kentucky and Kim Davis initiated force. Ted Cruz supported her alleged Constitutional right to do so. What is your position on this issue? Should state governments be free to initiate force until a majority of their citizens vote to cease doing so?
It is irrelevant to the question you originally brought up, being gay marriage. You tried to bring up the racial argument as an analogy for gay marriage. The ONLY thing I did was to point out that such an analogy was false. The rest of the discussion was a red herring you don't want to seem to put to bed.
But since you want to go there, again ...
The premise you are (perhaps unknowingly supporting) is the notion that government should control and run education in the first place! I thought I made myself pretty clear that I reject such a notion. To be crystal clear: I reject treating anyone differently because of the color of their skin. I do not justify either the segregation which happened NOR the usurpation of power which enabled it in the first place. But neither do I justify the use of force by one governmental entity to force change in another without proper authority.
If you want to accept the flawed premise that State governments have the authority to run education, then they absolutely do have a duty under the Fourteenth Amendment to extend the same privileges to all citizens and that the Federal Government as arbiter of Constitutional questions remains the last bastion of protection for these rights. I never argued contrary to that. The problem is that it is a bandaid - not a remedy.
"The “Jim Crow” laws across the South and elsewhere are a perfect example of the violation of individual rights by state governments."
Yes. They were. 100% in agreement. Next point.
"So by this standard, both the state of Kentucky and Kim Davis initiated force. Ted Cruz supported her alleged Constitutional right to do so. "
You are grossly misrepresenting not only the facts of the case, but impugning Cruz for something he did not do. Just because the Supreme Court declared something does not make it law. Only the Legislative Branch can craft law. The only real power of the Judicial is to declare a law null and void. Kim Davis opposed signing her name to a certificate authorizing the practice of something she opposed - something which also was declared illegal under State Law. She had two Constitutional reasons not to sign those certificates. Cruz upheld her right to object AND went further by noting that the Federal Government had no authority under the Constitution to tell Kentucky what to do in such a case. Cruz objected to the heavy hand of the Federal Government. He wasn't forcing anything else on anyone else.
Re: “If you want to accept the flawed premise that State governments have the authority to run education, then they absolutely do have a duty under the Fourteenth Amendment to extend the same privileges to all citizens and that the Federal Government as arbiter of Constitutional questions remains the last bastion of protection for these rights. I never argued contrary to that.”
Yes you did. You stated previously that “One can only legally ‘intervene’ where one has authority to do so. It doesn't make it right for the States to engage in racism in public schooling, but one wrong doesn't justify another.” So previously you said it was “wrong” for the Federal government to intervene to prevent racial segregation in schools. Now you are saying that the Feds have a duty to do so – and under the 14th Amendment, no less! This has been my point all along – it is wrong for states to interfere in (education/marriage), but if they do, “they absolutely do have a duty under the Fourteenth Amendment to extend the same privileges to all citizens and that the Federal Government as arbiter of Constitutional questions remains the last bastion of protection for these rights.”
They are completely different circumstances! I will repeat to you again, the problem lies in your claim that the two situations are equivalent. They are not. I reject it for what it is: a deliberate and calculated lie. There is no equivalency between the black rights movement and the gay marriage movement.
Under the Fourteenth Amendment, the plaintiff must demonstrate BOTH that A) a right has been violated AND B) that the plaintiff received disparate treatment under the law.
A) Contracts are not rights. Therefore the Fourteenth Amendment test fails the first prong. The Court can summarily declare the plaintiff as without standing right there and dismiss the suit.
B) There can be no disparate treatment without an equality of material circumstances. The conditions of a heterosexual marriage and that of a homosexual "marriage" are very different and in the most material ways. Therefore the Fourteenth Amendment test fails the second prong as well!
So to recap:
#1. It is a gross violation of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Constitution for the Federal Government to be involved in marriage.
#2. It is a violation of authority for the States to assume the right to control marriage through the issuance of marriage licenses.
#3. Both prongs of the Fourteenth Amendment test fail to make this an issue for the Courts to consider under that statute even if one ignores #1 and #2 above.
...which is exactly what Constitutional attorney Ted Cruz said.
Re: “There is no equivalency between the black rights movement and the gay marriage movement.” Sure there is. For starters there is your statement that states “absolutely do have a duty under the Fourteenth Amendment (emphasis yours) to extend the same privileges to all citizens and that the Federal Government as arbiter of Constitutional questions remains the last bastion of protection for these rights.” This applies as much to marriage as to schools. Several states attempted to create a privileged class – “married couples” – that deliberately excludes gay couples. Many states attempted to shoehorn gay couples into a separate legal category, “civil unions”, equivalent to the bogus “separate but equal” schools that were established in the South. Some gay couples protested, and the U.S. Supreme Court, as “as arbiter of Constitutional questions” and the “the last bastion of protection” against overreach by the states, correctly ruled in the gay couples’ favor.
Not only is there “equivalency between the black rights movement and the gay marriage movement,” that equivalency is glaringly obvious. In both cases, states are attempting to create a privileged class of citizens, one based on race and the other based on sexual orientation, in disregard of the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. In both cases, the Supreme Court has correctly ruled that states cannot do this.
As you say, contracts are not rights, but there is certainly a right to make a contract, and if the state grants special privileges to those who enter into certain types of contracts, it does not have the right to discriminate among those who wish to do so. And while “the conditions of a heterosexual marriage and that of a homosexual ‘marriage’ are very different and in the most material ways”, the privileges conferred by state recognition of a marriage contract are identical, including those that relate to inheritance, social security, immunity from testimony against a spouse, joint tax returns, eligibility for a spouse’s employer-based health insurance, decision-making if a spouse is incapacitated, and many others.
To answer your question: yes, heterosexual couples do enjoy privileges homosexual couples do not. Differences - material differences - exist which can be denied only by a denier of reality itself: potential for natural children, complementary sex organs, and participants' gender just to name three MAJOR ones! In order to equate heterosexual marriage to homosexual marriage, you must choose to ignore all of this - and more.
Discrimination is only unjust when there is a false evaluation of non-equivalency. You have chosen to ignore all the differences and focus on only the minor similarities, claiming that because there are similarities the differences are irrelevant. This is simply self-deception. That you are so willing to set aside these very blatant and obvious differences in pursuit of claiming equivalency tells me that this is an ideological issue to you - rather than a logical one. You aren't arguing to come to a logical outcome, you want to argue to justify your position in your own mind. That's a battle you must fight with yourself but also a battle in which I refuse to act as proxy any longer.
And I notice that you did not attempt to refute a single thing I said in my previous post.
Objectivism recognizes reality. Reality includes both similarities AND differences and sidelines neither in its considerations. Rights absolutely are important, but even you admitted marriage is not a right. Equal treatment is also important, but only in equivalent circumstances - a condition I have shown does not exist.
From the beginning, I was for last man standing and had a field of top 5 which included Cruz. Trump turned out to be the last man standing. The alternative to Trump is a lifelong corrupt, dishonest career politician with more baggage than Air Force One could carry and Globalist visions. That is unacceptable to me.
By the way, Pence seems to be an outstanding balance to Trump. I'm glad Trump picked him.
Before that, it was a pledge to the party, not to Trump, and previous to Trump's own subsequent inexcusable and dishonest personal behavior employed in his campaign.
No pledge to the party pertaining to a simple count of votes is an out of context absolute regardless of what else happens. "Principle" does not mean regardless of facts and context.
My guess is that regardless of what people think of him, he has actually created a benchmark showing a difference between politicians and statesmen and women. Politicians care about getting theirs in the future, statesmen don't.....
has been lost from the day Bat-Head was
elected.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-preside...
And if Cruz was so concerned about "voting one's conscience," then why did he pledge to support the Republican nominee in the first place? (A pledge that he very publicly broke) I don't consider him a "statesman" at all.
And who was it who after getting shellacked in one week was crying on both Sean Hannity and Anderson Cooper about the huge conspiracy against him and how he was going to abandon his pledge and run third-party? Oh, right. That was Donald Trump. Pot calling kettle black much?
Endorse, verb (used with object)
1. to approve, support, or sustain:
to endorse a political candidate.
I don’t see “agree with the person's policies and personality” anywhere. And if “supporting” and “endorsing” are two separate things, then Cruz could have supported Trump without endorsing him, as Reagan did with Ford. Cruz did neither.
Cruz congratulated Trump for winning, then reminded him that what was important wasn't Trump himself, but adherence to Constitutional values. That Trump and his cadre took that as an insult of any kind tells me that Trump doesn't care about anything but himself - let alone the Constitution.
What I find incredibly ironic is that it is those very Constitutional values which made America great in the beginning and our slide has been the result of abandoning those principles! When Donald Trump talks about "make America great again" he should be applauding Cruz' call to remember those values. That he takes a very different stance speaks volumes to me about the way he will actually govern if he wins.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/ted-c...
This interview took place several days after the spat about Cruz’s wife.
And here’s an earlier exchange in an interview with Chuck Todd:
TODD: Given everything you've just said about him in this interview, you still will support him if that is what the Republican party does?
CRUZ: You know, Chuck, I'm a very simple man and when I give my word for something, I follow through and do what I said.
http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/...
No one forced Cruz to sign the pledge, and if he had the slightest reservations about keeping it, he should not have signed.
I notice that you chose to ignore my points about the Constitution seeming to matter to only one person - that person not being Donald Trump. That tells me you aren't nearly as interested in Trump's position as merely denigrating Cruz. That's all I need to know, really.
2) My point had nothing to do with Trump. I was totally on topic as defined by the title of this thread, “Ted Cruz does not endorse Trump Based on Principles | RNC Convention”.
3) Cruz is not a defender of the Constitution in my book. His support of his “Christian faith” is manifested in such activities as defending Texas' "10 Commandments" monument on public property, and his support of County Clerk Kim Davis' refusal to issue marriage licenses to gay couples on religious grounds. If Cruz thinks that the First Amendment entitles politicians to display the Ten Commandments on public property and deny marriage licenses to couples not approved of by the “Christian Right,” I don’t think much of his ability or willingness to separate his religious beliefs from his alleged Constitutionalism.
4) I’m supporting Gary Johnson for President, as I’ve made clear in other posts. I do, however, consider Trump to be much preferable to Hillary.
5) Finally, to mirror your last paragraph, I notice that you chose to ignore my points about Cruz not being a man of his word. That tells me you aren't nearly as interested in Cruz’s character as merely denigrating Trump. That's all I need to know, really.
2. Cruz endorsed political candidates who were Constitutionalists. If Trump were such, Cruz' comments would have been the very endorsement you claim he held back.
3. The Constitution specifically reserves ALL powers not specifically delegated to the Federal Government to the States. Please show me where in the Constitution the Federal Government is given power over marriage, because I can't find it. Cruz' defense was precisely in favor of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments - not religion as some make it out to be. Go read his own statements on the matter.
4. Good for you, and I mean that in all seriousness. I won't be voting for either Donald or Hillary either.
5. See point #1 above. It has everything to do with Donald Trump. Cruz was invited to speak at the convention by Donald Trump. Cruz' speech was known and read by Donald Trump in advance. Trump's own people were whipping up anti-Cruz sentiment even before Cruz gave the speech. I didn't ignore your words about Cruz - I pointed out the double standard you were applying and how Trump was the first to break the very pledge you accuse Cruz of not holding to.
Yes, I see huge character flaws in Donald Trump. His past support for the Brady Bill is a red flag. His past financial support for Hillary Clinton is a red flag. The judgments of his unfitness for executive office from at least four bankruptcy proceedings are not lost on me. His abuse of eminent domain in order to build golf courses and hotels offends me. His constant whining about getting attacked by political opponents despite first not holding himself to his own standards disgusts me. His narcissistic insistence that his opinions are the ones which truly matter is the sign of someone so caught up in themselves they can't see reality - a stark reminder of our current Commander-in-Chief.
Re your point 3, “The Constitution specifically reserves ALL powers not specifically delegated to the Federal Government to the States.” Firstly, you left out the concluding phrase, “or to the people.” Secondly, the 14th Amendment supersedes the 10th, guarantees citizens equal protection of the laws, and applies to state and local governments. I would never support a “Constitutional” interpretation that allows state and local governments to make some citizens more “equal” than others. I saw too much of that growing up in Georgia in the 1950’s.
Read the author's own statements on the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment: it was to cover the freed slaves and extend to them all the privileges they should have been able to exercise already. It, however, did not give the Federal Government power to regulate marriage in any form.
And even the States themselves only started "regulating" marriage when they instituted marriage licenses - which were an excuse to extort money and to give the government control to prevent interracial marriages - a usurpation of authority they never had. The issue of gay marriage never was about equal protection. If you believe that you believe one of the great lies of our times.
Re: “The issue of gay marriage never was about equal protection. If you believe that you believe one of the great lies of our times.” Maybe it wasn’t about equal protection at the time the 14th Amendment was enacted, but it certainly is about equal protection now. The Constitution and its amendments were not enacted simply to cover the political issues of their time – they also were intended to serve as a guide to resolving future political conflicts whose nature they could not foresee. The 9th Amendment is a good example of this, and is also very relevant to the gay marriage issue.
Regarding the 14th Amendment, the problem is that there is no equality of condition between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual one in the first place. Without an equality of condition, there can be no violation of equality in the first place. And such an argument still presupposes the notion that even State governments have the ability to interfere in what was a religious event in the first place. As I pointed out, their intentions were those of interference and coercion - not the establishment of freedom.
I would further point out that marriage is a contract - not a right. The real sticking point with any contractual arrangement is enforcement. By government asserting the role of arbiter over which marriages are valid and which are invalid, they are in effect establishing a governmentally-sponsored and -imposed religion which tramples over the First Amendment rights of ALL Americans.
You have to follow what will inevitably happen through objectively and plan for it. Trump like Perot could afford to skip a lot of the roadblocks. Can you do the same? All I see is your still focused on marijuana as a primary http://objective.No one to speak of is hanging on your every word. Nothing of importance has been stated in terms strong enough to make a dent.
Meanwhile opportunity after opportunity is passed up or frittered away including getting to 15% what's happening to that all important step? Close will only get the bar raised to 20% the next time.
Meanwhile, Gary Johnson is working very hard to reach the 15% goal and is still rising in the polls. After the events of the last few days he may pick up several more percentage points as protest votes from both establishment Republicans and Cruz supporters.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2...
http://www.post-gazette.com/local/reg...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/op...
The bottom line: Voters, especially those in non-swing states, can safely support Gary Johnson without helping Hillary win and without derailing Trump’s makeover of the Republican Party.
BAHAHahahahahahaBHAHAhahahahahaBahahahahaah
If your worried about the demoncraps and partisanship then you are refusing to acknowledge the problem of how we got here and how it has effected republicans..ie, big government establishment and fear of telling it like it is.
Progressiveism, socialism, communism and establishmentism is the problem, failing to go by the constitution is the problem, having the ethical and moral guts to address the problems they created is the problem.
Like I said, he chooses the worst of friends and confidants...most, the very people most of us want to see go and would never do business with. It just doesn't feel right, and I try and listen to my gut feelings. (not emotions).
No convincing ah ha moment to speak of an awakening on his part, no humility, no self inspection.
If I had to guess, and it's just a guess, he is more self interested in global contacts than about saving the republic.
I'm not even that impressed with Johnson.
The only promising but in all probability not, is hiltery goes to jail.
I am looking at a tale of two Trumps. the one I have seen in interviews and his track record over 40years, and the Politician trump who is doing what is necessary to beat Hillary to put his talents to use for the people.
George Foreman is reported as being one of the nicest guys you would ever want to meet. Put him in the ring as a boxer and god help you. Two George Forman's.
I am convinced the "Politician Trump" is doing the mean ruthless thing only out of necessity, not out of his desire to actually be that way.
Personally I thought his message was very positive, just without an endorsement and I respect anyone who stand on their values.
He didnt have to endorse Trump, BUT he shouldnt have gone to the convention to try and upset what the people had selected.
It was obvious that his hidden agenda was to have Trump lose the election, and then he sets himself up to run in 2020. The problem is that he stiffed the very party he would run under, and they are NOT going to support him next time.
He is a sore loser, thats all.
His "constitutional" mantra just isnt resonating with the mob rule voters. Socialism is resonating more than what he is promoting right now in this culture.
From where I sit, leadership is knowing when to extend an olive branch instead of just taking it for granted Cruz would just jump on the bandwagon. If he did, I would have lost all respect for him. It is Trump who should have made the move (showing real leadership ability and wisdom) instead he sat on his hands and let to the folks who became his surrogates do the name calling.
That convention showed me absolutely nothing, no real platform and no managing the Republican party to provide total support through the election and more importantly, through his presidency if he is elected.
Without real committments from the Establishment, Trumps election means nothing! For what its worth!
IMHO, Trump showed his colors last night. Well written speech, sure, but a speech just the same. The underlying message I got is he is the person (dictator) to solve everyone's problems. He is the man of law and order. And he will rule with an iron fist. I never once heard anything about getting government out of people's way so the country can be fixed naturally, by Capitalism.
Of course my impression may be wrong. We will see if he is elected.
I think we are all sovereigns with power limited to our own lives and activities.
1) Yes, Lincoln was an R however his real mark on the country besides the slavery issue was killing Federalism, trumping (pardon the pun) states rights.
2) Yes, the KKK was populated by Democrats
3) Yes, Ike was an R however he was also a mediocre soldier and no fireball of a president. He was handpicked for no apparent reason to become General and Supreme Allied Commander...the rest is history.
4) Yes, Byrd was a Democrat and Grand Dragon of the KKK.
5) Yes, LBJ got support from the R's for his Great Society scam (guns and butter to get the hawks onboard - shame on them too).
6) Yes, Nixon did sign the Affirmative Action law (and a host of other "Progressive" bills as well. He was a conservative up to his loss to JFK and after a stint at George Schultz' law firm he comes back, well financed and a total Progressive/Liberal - go figure!!!!
7) And yes, the Democrats did pass law(s) restricting free speech and a host of other Constitutional rights - and they continue their assault (with quiet support from the R's) on the rest of our Bill of Rights (1st 10 amendments).
So! There you have it......The ugly Truth!
You list a rogues gallery of looters.
And yes I realize we are still enslaved in some respects but this time...we have a mind...a mind that can never be enslaved.
I would have felt better about Cruz if he simply said how important it is to stick to constitutional principles and that he hoped the republican party and its candidates would be successful in doing just that.
That said, he should have said that the people have spoken and the choice in november was Hillary or Trump, and that although he has a tough time with Trump, voting for Hillary would NOT be a good thing to do. Therefore, he was voting for Trump this time and hoped that his constitutional influence would be taken seriously.
"Trump reacted, although I would have advised him to let it slide and not say anything about Cruz's wife."
Yes, that would have been the high road. But that's not what Donald did. And unless I have my timeline mistaken, that all happened after the start of the whole "Lyin' Ted" mantra, which was started and fueled entirely by Donald Trump. Remember, in the very first debate the moderators gave Cruz a chance to go after Donald Trump. He didn't. He said "I'm wearing a Trump tie". He further went on to excoriate the moderators for trying to get the candidates to fight with each other. Cruz took the high road then. And even after the despicable attacks on his wife and his father - both of which came straight from the official Trump campaign - Cruz acted like the gentleman and asked Trump to apologize, but refrained from calling Trump similar names. Stop pretending Trump is the victim here. He's proven time and time again he's a victimizer.
"I would have felt better about Cruz if he simply said how important it is to stick to constitutional principles and that he hoped the republican party and its candidates would be successful in doing just that..."
Did you listen to or read the speech? That's precisely what he said! The problem is that you're focusing entirely on the reaction and attributing Cruz' words to ginned-up crowd reactions. Quote me from his speech what he said that was so controversial and you'll have something to talk about.
"He was just hoping Trump would lose the election to Hillary..."
Then why did he explicitly go on to say that a Hillary presidency would be a disaster for our nation?
"This wasnt the time or place to promote himself like that."
Where in his speech did Cruz mention himself - even once? Again - you're projecting your own biases - not what Cruz actually said.
Holly crap, we here are just as divided as the nation is.
I thought we were better than that.
"he was encouraging people to vote against trump "
Quote me line and verse where Cruz did any such thing. He didn't. Good grief - its clear you didn't listen to Cruz' remarks nor even bother to read a transcript. It's beyond pathetic.
I understand you're a Trumpster. You've been one from the beginning. You're anti-Cruz. That's your choice. But at least be objective. Do your homework. READ about things before commenting. You'd end up having your shoes at the end of these conversations.
I wasnt anti-cruz really. He is a real conservative and constitutionalist, which I actually like. I do think that his manner alienates people somewhat., and apparently makes him sort of hated within the government.
When he started in and concentrated on the never Trump campaign, that DID turn me off. If he wanted to do a "never campaign", I would have thought a "never Hillary" campaign would have been better.
I knew then that he would never get enough support to win the republican nomination or the election himself. He didnt give up though, which is admirable.
I would like to see a more open election where non traditional party candidates actually had some chance of succeeding. That would require primary selection based on actual votes with no "delegates" or "super delegates", and national election selection also based on actual votes instead of the electoral college At that point, perhaps Cruz or Johnson would actually have a chance and it would make more sense to vote for them.
Right now, its either Trump or Hillary. I just cant believe Hillary is the better choice that we will have to live with for at least 4 years. Look what Obama has done in 8 years. We cant have more of THAT.
The whole problem with our current system is that politics has devolved from being about principles - like the Constitution - into cults of personality - like Barack Obama or Donald Trump. It is no wonder that our nation has devolved and slid into malaise. Until we again embrace the values which made our nation successful, it won't matter which spray-painted face is on the cameras every night.
And the problem is in making the Presidential election popular in the first place. The Constitution calls for the President to be elected by the Electoral College, whose delegations were supposed to be selected by State Executives - not John Q. Public.
Add to that the crooked delegate system, and you have what we seen in the democratic party- Sanders was nearly as popular as Hildebeast, but got nowhere. If it wasnt for Trump's popular support that let him hijack the republican party, we would be stuck with another Bush. It really is time for change. I hope that Trump can open up the process and make it more competitive for all
Bush was pushed out of the running a long time ago. He was never in serious contention, even in his home state. Rubio had him beat even without Trump. And I would be very careful in citing Trump's popular support. Remember, Trump's Primary wins came in open-voting states where one could vote for a candidate regardless of one's own political affiliation. Trump will need those voters who crossed the aisle to pull the lever again for him in the Generals to have a chance. And remember that Republicans already start pretty much needing to run the table on Ohio, Florida, and several other swing states. That's a tall order - especially with all the evidence of vote-manipulation from Obama's win over Romney.
Both parties have become total tools of the elites. That is the sad fact for those who care to face the Truth! The powers that be keep feeding us this fluff as if there is any real difference between these two major (orchestrated) parties when in reality they are still two sides of the same coin marching to their puppet masters orders!
In Russia, the Communist party gave you one candidate and mandated that everyone "exercise" their duty to vote! In this country, they put lipstick on the pig giving us supposedly two different parties however, the power elite still orchestrate who we will get to vote for, one way or the other. Either candidate will fall in line and being that Congress and the Judiciary are already "co-opted" it becomes a fait' accompli' and we are told "move along citizen, nothing to see here!".
For what its worth!
Trump took advantage of this upset and basically hijacked a dead-in-the-water republican party. They hated him, but they realized no matter what they did, his hijacking was going to happen through popular support.
The Repub darling was Jeb Bush, who spent 200 million and got NOWHERE. Then they tried for Marco Rubio, who didnt get anywhere either. They hated Cruz already but I think they preferred him to Trump. But the people spoke and Trump just had too much support. The establishment tried everything to stop him, but they couldnt. I kind of loved that part.
I want the delegate system to be dumped, along with the electoral college. The establishment will fight those things tooth and nail, but it would be good I think for us the voters. More choices will be out there with a real chance to win.
Then the presidency might even be limited to those people who are efficient administrators of the constitutionally mandated programs, with no ability to take from me and give to others. That would eliminate the lobbyists, the $2billion dollar elections, the cronyism, etc.