Ted Cruz Announces
- Thread starter CMH_GSE
- Start date
http://gu.com/p/4fkqa?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
"In his emails to the Guardian, Tribe discussed Cruzs own approach to constitutional issues, noting that under the kind of judge Cruz says he admires and would appoint to the supreme court an originalist who claims to be bound by the historical meaning of the constitutions terms at the time of their adoption Cruz wouldnt be eligible because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and 90s required that someone be born on US soil to be a natural born citizen.
He added: Even having two US parents wouldnt suffice for a genuine originalist. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would clearly have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.
On the other hand, to the kind of judge that I admire and Cruz abhors a living constitutionalist who believes that the constitutions meaning evolves with the needs of the time Cruz would ironically be eligible because it no longer makes sense to be bound by so narrow and strict a definition.
"In his emails to the Guardian, Tribe discussed Cruzs own approach to constitutional issues, noting that under the kind of judge Cruz says he admires and would appoint to the supreme court an originalist who claims to be bound by the historical meaning of the constitutions terms at the time of their adoption Cruz wouldnt be eligible because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and 90s required that someone be born on US soil to be a natural born citizen.
He added: Even having two US parents wouldnt suffice for a genuine originalist. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would clearly have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.
On the other hand, to the kind of judge that I admire and Cruz abhors a living constitutionalist who believes that the constitutions meaning evolves with the needs of the time Cruz would ironically be eligible because it no longer makes sense to be bound by so narrow and strict a definition.
Asked if he was surprised by Trump’s use of his name, Tribe wrote: “What I find surreal isn’t that a Republican presidential candidate would favorably cite my legal conclusions, but that anyone should find that phenomenon so shocking.
“The fact that I’m a lifelong liberal and a registered Democrat who taught constitutional law to President Obama (and, by the way, to Chief Justice Roberts and Senator Cruz) makes my citation by a likely Republican nominee for president surprising ...
...only because our political divisions have become so profound and so paralyzing that people no longer believe in the possibility of disinterested legal research.
“That’s really sad.”
“The fact that I’m a lifelong liberal and a registered Democrat who taught constitutional law to President Obama (and, by the way, to Chief Justice Roberts and Senator Cruz) makes my citation by a likely Republican nominee for president surprising ...
...only because our political divisions have become so profound and so paralyzing that people no longer believe in the possibility of disinterested legal research.
“That’s really sad.”
Ifly2 said:
Not really. He uses the phrase 'not definitely' in several instances, which also supports your last sentence.
How could anyone look into this and claim 'disinterest'?
They would be labeled by one or another party......like he points out too.
Make a good thesis.
Did we read the same article?
I looked back again and could not find the phrase "not definitely" even once, much less several times.
His observation that the type of strict constructionist intrepretation that Cruz favors or believes in would almost certainly make Cruz ineligible is definitely interesting, and certainly valid.
It appears that The Anointed One believes that he is truly exceptional, and that an exception to his own principles should apply to the Constitution when it pertains to himself vs. what he believes should apply to everyone else.
Above the law, ends justifies the means, little people pay taxes, let 'em eat cake, and all that...
Lack of integrity on a very basic and profound level.
(That _was_ an anti-Cruz thing, and he deserves it... Yeah, plenty other politicians on either side of the aisle too...)
I looked back again and could not find the phrase "not definitely" even once, much less several times.
His observation that the type of strict constructionist intrepretation that Cruz favors or believes in would almost certainly make Cruz ineligible is definitely interesting, and certainly valid.
It appears that The Anointed One believes that he is truly exceptional, and that an exception to his own principles should apply to the Constitution when it pertains to himself vs. what he believes should apply to everyone else.
Above the law, ends justifies the means, little people pay taxes, let 'em eat cake, and all that...
Lack of integrity on a very basic and profound level.
(That _was_ an anti-Cruz thing, and he deserves it... Yeah, plenty other politicians on either side of the aisle too...)
Kev3188
Veteran
What's a "libtard?"
Nodelldude said:
Already said that too
I thnk he would be a bad choice
I don't think he would be successful at more than about 20-25% of the Fundamental Change he promises, much less trigger The Apocalypse or single-handedly ruin The Republic.
I do think that if he was able to rein in spending and reduce the government it would be a good thing, if he did in the right places.
Unfortunately, he won't do much of either, and what will happen is that more people will have to fight, or re-fight needless battles in order to avoid having his and his followers' moral restrictions imposed on their individual freedoms, and some will lose those freedoms.
Also, even more American taxpayers' money will be wasted evangelizing (militarily...) in parts of the world where it will accomplish nothing even remotely good, and more "other peoples' kids" will die for no reason.
Perhaps y'all should think a minute or two about the intefri of a man who believes in the strict constructionist view of the constitution for you and ~350 million Americans, but in a liberal "living constitution" intrepretation when it applies to himself.
Politician and Intefrity are almost mutually exclusive, but that demonstration of the lack of integrity is so very basic and so blatant that it deserves an extra dose of scrutiny.
Politician and Intefrity are almost mutually exclusive, but that demonstration of the lack of integrity is so very basic and so blatant that it deserves an extra dose of scrutiny.
southwind
Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2008
- Messages
- 7,709
- Reaction score
- 3,928
Of the progressive persuasion.Kev3188 said:
Those who use government to impose their view and will on others.
Those who believe they are owed something by someone.
Those that believe money should be taken from people who have EARNED it and given to those who did not EARN it.
Those who don't have a problem with American lives being taken on American soil, by our enemies.
Those that want to fight our enemies on our soil, not theirs.
Those that endorse gun free zones but refuse to put a gun free zone sign in their yard.
Those that give Islamic terrorist a pass , while condemning Christians at every turn.
Need I go on?
Kev3188
Veteran
I hate to tell you this, but you've just described today's conservatives to a T...southwind said:
Similar threads
