Mature and respectful discussion, please. Lest we forget at this site what the originator is empowered to do.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Each of those 5 departments do not have the constitutional authority to exist and need to be eliminated.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Smith, where does the US Constitution specifically allow or prohibit any Department of the Executive branch "to be or not to be"? They were all established by enacted legislation to effect efficient administration of powers that the Constitution allows to the Federal government such as defend the country, impose taxes (even if it took a specific Amendment to ensure the allowance of the most prolific one of such), enter into treaties, spend $$$, et magna alia.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Article 1, Section 8 of our Constitution clearly delineates what the federal government can do. And Amendment 10 re-enforces that Section.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not going to argue Constitutional law. There are others far better equipped to do so.
I will simply say ... any legislative action requires willpower, political capital, and votes in two houses of Congress. If Mr Cruz wins and has all 3 of those, he will get what he wants. If not, he won't.
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cruz, as President, can take his case directly to the USSC, after Ginsberg is replaced with someone that respects our Constitution and the wording contained within that document. Senator Cruz is VERY familiar with arguing his case before the USSC.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I doubt if too many Cruz supporters will be happy with this Wall Street Journal (yes; I said the Journal - not The Times) columnist's thoughts printed today:
The senator’s supporters adore him because they see him in those moments when he has positioned himself as the hero. To them he is the stalwart forcing a government shutdown over ObamaCare. He’s the brave soul calling to filibuster in defense of gun rights. He’s the one keeping the Senate in lame-duck session to protest Mr. Obama’s unlawful immigration orders.
Mr. Cruz’s detractors see a man who engineers moments to aggrandize himself at the expense of fellow conservatives. And they see the consequences. They wonder what, exactly, Mr. Cruz has accomplished.
ObamaCare is still on the books. It took the GOP a year to recover its approval ratings after the shutdown, which helped deny Senate seats to Ed Gillespie in Virginia and Scott Brown in New Hampshire. Mr. Obama’s immigration orders are still on the books. The courts gained a dozen liberal judges, all with lifetime tenure, because the lame-duck maneuver gave Democrats time to cram confirmation votes through. Mr. Cruz’s opportunism tends to benefit one cause: Mr. Cruz.
Yet getting away with this kind of thing is harder in foreign policy, and the Paris massacre is illustrating that difficulty. For months now, Mr. Cruz has been presenting himself in debates and national forums as hawkish, even as he panders to Mr. Paul’s voters at smaller events. Last month he attended the Republican Liberty Caucus in New Hampshire, where he boasted that the “liberty movement has been integral to our campaign since Day 1,” and touted the endorsement he received from (the isolationist) Ron Paul during his run for the Senate. He enjoyed a standing ovation.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Senator Cruz has secured his spot on the GOP ticket in 2016. Top of the ticket or second in line is what is still to be determined.
Posts: 831 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
Over at Open Discussion (possibly where this topic is headed once I give Lori the word) I said Hillary would beat Rubio "decisively, but not landslide". Hillary v. Cruz; Landslide (66/34 or better).
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Article 3 Section 2: In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and conculs and those in which a State shall be party, The Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.
Do you consider the President to be a public minister?
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
