18% of people don't know Ted Cruz's name!
- Thread starter republicanchick
- Start date
Mocking You
New member
Did people want to remember he was ever president thereafter?
He may not be the worst President in US history (I think LBJ was) but he's for sure the worst ex-President in US history.
eventually he'll become the worst dead president in history
republicanchick
New member
we're supposed to believe this?
ha ha... You count on that partition being there @ voting time.. But i know darn good and well you libs will vote for the lib every time
despite the corruption, the lies, the deceptions, the ineptitude
Moron City
+
Sure. I've proven I don't test the wind before making a point.
I don't know if you're stupid, but when you write something like that you might as well be.
Saved.One.by.Grace
New member
What in particular about Cruz disqualifies him for your vote? I'm not saying I would vote for anybody at the moment.
He, like his good friend Scalia are textualists. They believe in reading a law or Amendment as literally and narrowly as possible, rejecting contextual and even the stated intent of the authors. That's a consistent position, but I think it's fundamentally mistaken and its too important an issue to have engaged with the power of the White House. Among the victims of that approach? Your right to privacy, which is nowhere literally set out in the Constitution.
Saved.One.by.Grace
New member
Do you hold that same view when reading the Bible, that is, not taking it literally?
Caledvwlch
New member
You mean with sophistication, nuance and a sense of historical perspective?
Not really a parallel and I'm not sure why you're veering from a fairly straight forward answer and one particularly serious consequence of it in opposition.
The Bible is filled with both the literal and the figurative. Unless you believe trees can clap non existent hands and mountains shout you believe that too. And understanding the author's intent is important.
"For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands." Isaiah 55:12
Saved.One.by.Grace
New member
The three words you chose to use in your question seem to emphasize your bias, as an atheist, rather looking to have a deeper understanding of my Biblical exegesis.
Caledvwlch
New member
Yes, my bias to understand something as it is, rather than what I wish it to be. That's fair.
Saved.One.by.Grace
New member
Saved.One.by.Grace
New member
The framework that the US Constitution hangs on is the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, Articles of Federation and various correspondance written by the Founders. I believe we know without a doubt what the Constitution means. It's tragic that the South were adament about keeping the institution of slavery intact.
You bring up the right of privacy. If the Founders had the foresight to know what technology could do, there might have been another Amendment to the original 10 in the Bill of Rights. But when you have activist justices, you are taking away from the balance of the three branches of government. So I don't have a problem with Cruz in that respect. I may have in others, but it's too soon to know. I have a much more liberal view on immigration for example.
Saved.One.by.Grace
New member
My viewpoint also.
Not if you accept Scalia and Cruz by the limitations they impose. It's context free, forget the footnotes or intent. What does it say and what doesn't it say. That's it.
I think everyone feels that way.
It's tragic the North agreed and took profit by it for generations. Tragedy all around. Not sure what that has to do with Cruz either though. :think:
Yeah. It's important. Its protections are fairly meaningful for the average citizen in exercise.
Probably so, but it wasn't necessary and there's nothing in the original framer's writings to indicate they were textualists and much in their writing to indicate they were anything but.
The struggle between branches will never end, but any review of law and execution of it is absolutely necessary to actually maintain a rough balance of powers. If we reduce the Court to yes men for the legislature, we take a step away from the intent of a republic in the first place and a step closer to mob rule, however formalized.
Our founders wouldn't have cared for that notion either.
I suspect most Americans do too.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
After Top Gun, I thought everyone knew his name.
they were evil men who were served justice by the likes of sherman :idunno:
Saved.One.by.Grace
New member
You can't unlearn something once it is learned -- at least it's hard for me. I guarantee you they've read the documents I quoted.
Only in the sense that the Founders always thought the US Constitution would be and needed to be amended over time. For some reason, I thought that was important to state.
I disagree with you here. Justices still use the Federalist Papers in their interpretations.
On the contrary, the Justices frequently say no when the legislature or appeals court oversteps its authority.
drbrumley
Well-known member
:rotfl: