Ted Cruz's Own Hometown is Embarrassed of Him

[Stickfight]

You forgot Dred Scott

Shocked neither of you picked Bowers vs Hardwick.

 

[ViperJock]

Streaks home town is embarrassed by him. See, it's in print it must be true.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Streaks home town is embarrassed by him. See, it's in print it must be true.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Shocked neither of you picked Bowers vs Hardwick.

Damnit, gonna make me have to look that up.

 

[mbills2223]

Streaks home town is embarrassed by him. See, it's in print it must be true.

Sig material...?? Potentially.

 

[Stickfight]

Damnit, gonna make me have to look that up.

An actual SCOTUS Justice stated, in an official court opinion, that he decided the case that Bowers overturned based on his belief that a ban was Constitutional because the Constitution did not provide a specific right to do the banned thing.

Although that is one of the more insane things SCOTUS has written I have yet to see a better system proposed by the "but see here the court changed its mind" crowd. SCOINGO has been suggested and rejected. Letting Glenn Beck hear all the cases same problems. Each citizen individually deciding which laws are applicable to him in also not workable. Consulting tea leaves and/or praying for divine guidance are both equally unreliable.

 

[88GT]

Logical fallacy. Pointing out the "it's the law now" argument as specious and arbitrary does not equate to a belief that SCOTUS should be altered or replaced with an alternative. Only that it isn't infallible and its decision, while legally the law of the land, are often counter the spirit of the Constitution, if not the letter of it. Certainly contrary to the republicanism of the founders and their intent to keep the feds small and relatively inconsequential.

 

[mbills2223]

Logical fallacy. Pointing out the "it's the law now" argument as specious and arbitrary does not equate to a belief that SCOTUS should be altered or replaced with an alternative. Only that it isn't infallible and its decision, while legally the law of the land, are often counter the spirit of the Constitution, if not the letter of it. Certainly contrary to the republicanism of the founders and their intent to keep the feds small and relatively inconsequential.

I always like to point out Plessy v. Ferguson.

 

[Wild Deuce]

Really? I have had my thoughts and passions challenged here and have reevaluated and changed my mind upon further reflection at least twice here because folks disagreed with me.

I'll bet it was because they made a persuasive argument somewhere along the line ... not because you were insulted or antagonized.

 

[Stickfight]

Logical fallacy. Pointing out the "it's the law now" argument as specious and arbitrary does not equate to a belief that SCOTUS should be altered or replaced with an alternative

"It's the law now" is not specious and arbitrary, it is the process described in the country's founding document. Your argument is that because SCOTUS sometimes overturns prior SCOTUS decisions, SCOTUS decisions don't determine the Constitutionality of laws, yet that is exactly what they do. The laws are Constitutional until SCOTUS decides they are not. Are they subject to the same human failing as everyone else? Of course, but I'd much prefer a panel of people who've devoted their lives to studying the law make those decision than some random collection of people who showed up at the same web site and once read the Federalist papers and they think they are all legal scholars. Or some professional partisan.

Your interpretation of the spirit and letter of the Constitution is yours. I don't want you deciding for me and everyone else. If you wanted the opportunity, way back when they asked what you wanted to study you could've said 'pre-law' and taken a shot at being one of the guys who participated in the process described in the Constitution and decided for me. You didn't, and you don't get to change your mind now just because you don't agree with the outcome of today's cases. You are more than welcome to disagree with the decisions, but that doesn't make them Unconstitutional because, see above, you aren't the guy who decides.

 

[Stickfight]

I always like to point out Plessy v. Ferguson.

Welcome to half a thread ago.

 

[cobber]

Shocked neither of you picked Bowers vs Hardwick.

Or Roe v. Wade. For penumbras of rights. You know, the Constitution sometimes illuminates, sometimes shades. Marvelous thing...

But it's ALL Constitutional.

Erm...

 

[Streak]

Or Roe v. Wade. For penumbras of rights. You know, the Constitution sometimes illuminates, sometimes shades. Marvelous thing...

But it's ALL Constitutional.

Erm...

Slavery and abortion are sort of on a different level than Health insurance. Or do we equate equality and a woman's basic right to control her body with health insurance?

 

[ghitch75]

Slavery and abortion are sort of on a different level than Health insurance. Or do we equate equality and a woman's basic right to control her body with health insurance?

i feel enslaved as to be made to buy something i don't want.......

 

[88GT]

"It's the law now" is not specious and arbitrary,

But it is, because the same people arguing for the Constitutionality of one thing are grousing about the unConstitutionality of another. I am not referring to the actual status of the law, but the claims people use to justify its existence.

Your argument is that because SCOTUS sometimes overturns prior SCOTUS decisions, SCOTUS decisions don't determine the Constitutionality of laws, yet that is exactly what they do.

No, my argument is that there is a difference between what it ruled as Constitutional and what should be Constitutional based on the authors' intent.

The laws are Constitutional until SCOTUS decides they are not.

That's not true.

Are they subject to the same human failing as everyone else? Of course, but I'd much prefer a panel of people who've devoted their lives to studying the law make those decision than some random collection of people who showed up at the same web site and once read the Federalist papers and they think they are all legal scholars. Or some professional partisan.

Again with the logical fallacy.

Your interpretation of the spirit and letter of the Constitution is yours.

No, I tend to rely on the authors of the Constitution for the meaning and intent. In the absence of something specific, it's not to hard to look at the big picture and figure out where something sits relative to the concept of limited power in the feds and republicanism.

I don't want you deciding for me and everyone else.

But you're perfectly fine letting other strangers whose qualifications may or may not be sound deciding for you. So be honest about the apparent contradiction. You just don't like the fact that someone with a different world view would be making it.

If you wanted the opportunity, way back when they asked what you wanted to study you could've said 'pre-law' and taken a shot at being one of the guys who participated in the process described in the Constitution and decided for me. You didn't, and you don't get to change your mind now just because you don't agree with the outcome of today's cases. You are more than welcome to disagree with the decisions, but that doesn't make them Unconstitutional because, see above, you aren't the guy who decides.

The concept of Constitutionality doesn't begin and end with judicial review. And the bolded is exactly the point I and others have been making. If the standard of Constitutionality is reduced to the prevailing opinions of a group of black-robed individuals and nothing else, then the Constitution might as well not even exist. There is no guarantee the life-long students of law and the Constitution will actually rule in accordance with the Constitution. If tomorrow Congress passed a law granting them unfettered access to stop and search vehicles, it would not be Constitutional just because SCOTUS ruled it as such. It is precisely because SCOTUS individuals have ruled in opposition to the Constitution that I say justification of Constitutionality based solely on the SCOTUS rulings is arbitrary and specious.

 

[88GT]

i feel enslaved as to be made to buy something i don't want.......

Frankly, I see slavery and the health insurance mandate (along with every other tax used to fund entitlement programs) as exactly the same. Slavery just doesn't hide the fact that one man benefits from another man's efforts through the use of force.

 

[printcraft]

I am also an Indiana state LTCH holder. It's pink piece of paper that I waited for something like 6 months for and had to laminate myself.

You should have come see me, I would have laminated that for free.......... I do that for any INGO member.

You do like free stuff right? Of course you do.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Back to the OP: I am a former resident of Houston. Probably the only city in Texas more liberal in its outlook is Austen. I very much doubt Ted Cruz is either unpopular in his "hometown" or that he is unpopular with the majority of his constituency - and he's certainly gotten my attention in a favorable way. Based on how hungry we conservatives are for politicians to stand up for OUR values instead of caving like cheap cardboard boxes at the first hint of their enemies' criticism, I doubt that Senator Cruz has damaged his chances in the political arena.

 

[Birds Away]

A politician runs for office promising to do everything in his power to get rid of socialized medicine. He does everything in his power to get rid of socialized medicine. Notwithstanding the opinions of a liberal rag, his constituents must be very happy to finally have a politician do exactly what he said he would do. My only question is can we clone him?

 

[cobber]

The laws are Constitutional until SCOTUS decides they are not. Are they subject to the same human failing as everyone else? Of course, but I'd much prefer a panel of people who've devoted their lives to studying the law make those decision than some random collection of people who showed up at the same web site and once read the Federalist papers and they think they are all legal scholars. Or some professional partisan.

Your interpretation of the spirit and letter of the Constitution is yours. I don't want you deciding for me and everyone else. If you wanted the opportunity, way back when they asked what you wanted to study you could've said 'pre-law' and taken a shot at being one of the guys who participated in the process described in the Constitution and decided for me. You didn't, and you don't get to change your mind now just because you don't agree with the outcome of today's cases. You are more than welcome to disagree with the decisions, but that doesn't make them Unconstitutional because, see above, you aren't the guy who decides.

Well, if all three branches of government decided to arrest and drown witches, would that make it Constitutional?

As far as judicial review goes, that is actually NOT a Constitutional principle, but was a role the SCOTUS invented for itself.

Just like the federal courts of appeal are nowhere in the Constitution (nor the district courts) but were created by an act of Congress.

A lot of this is duct tape and bailing wire. Sometimes it works fine.

As far as professional and learned judges are concerned, as arbiters of the Constitution, you have far more confidence in their competence than do I. I would be astonished if any of the current Supremes have "devoted their lives to studying the law". And those who have done so, i.e. law profs, are singularly and uniquely unsuited to expressing an opinion on anything having to do with real-life.