This is topic up to speed on Cruz in forum Politics forum at The New Huntmastersbbs!.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://www.huntmastersbbs.com/cgi-bin/cgi-ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=10;t=001097
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on February 19, 2016, 01:20 PM:
What few people know -- and the media won’t remind them -- is that Ted Cruz was a prime mover in getting Heller, in which Scalia wrote the majority opinion, before the Court and decided in favor of gun rights, ruling that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right and that the word “militia”, as the Founders intended, meant the “whole people” of the United States. If Heller had gone the other way, our gun rights would have been thrown on the ash heap of history. In January Cruz told CNN:
I represented 31 states in the Heller case, which upheld the individual right to keep and bear arms. You know what Barack Obama's position is? That there is no individual right to keep and bear arms whatsoever under the Constitution… Hillary Clinton, for example, has said she will put Supreme Court justices on the court who will overturn Heller. And if Heller is overturned… there were four justices who said that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms whatsoever, that it is only a collective right in the militia, which is fancy lawyer talk for a nonexistent right… [If] Hillary Clinton gets one more Supreme Court justice, what it would mean is, the Supreme Court would say you and I and every individual American have no constitutional right under the Second Amendment at all, and either the federal government or a state government could make it a crime to possess a firearm.
Our Second Amendment rights are indeed one SCOTUS pick away from disappearing. The next president should make that pick, not an anti-gun lame duck with an agenda to complete his fundamental transformation of America. Not long ago, the Second Amendment hung in the balance, and we may be thankful that Ted Cruz and Antonin Scalia were there to save it.
Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily,
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on February 20, 2016, 10:01 AM:
Good one by Jonah Goldberg
"...argument for Trump is that he’s a “disrupter,” breaking up the calcified and sclerotic political establishment, yada yada.
Left out of these rationalizations is the fact that “disrupter” is a morally and intellectually neutral concept.
A chimpanzee running around a hospital ward with a hand grenade is a disrupter."
Posted by Moe (Member # 4494) on February 23, 2016, 09:43 PM:
Jefferson wrote in the Federalist Papers that militia meant "The whole of the people." The problem is that 4 of the justices do not use the papers explaining the meaning of the constitution. Ginsburg actually said she doesn't bother with the constitution when making decisions but rather looks at international law. Stephen Breyer was once asked what the constitution meant in a particular case. His response? "The constitution means what I say it means."
I have often wondered why those liberal justices are even on the court. None of them ever makes a decision upholding the rights of the people. They always side with the Democrats and never with the constitution.
I'm still trying to find where abortion is mentioned in the constitution.
And while we're on the subject, did you know that the SCOTUS has found that a tax on your personal income is unconstitutional 5 separate times the last time being in 1935? They also found that congress had no authority to establish the Federal Reserve Bank. All that shit was done when Woodrow Wilson was in office. Why there are schools named after him is beyond me.
Wilson was the first southern Democrat elected to the presidency since the civil war and he did everything in his power to get back at the north for what they did to the south. Wilson segregated the military and had blacks removed from powerful positions in the government. In short, he was a scumbag.
Yes, I know we still have the Federal Reserve and a personal income tax. Don't ask me why.
Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on February 24, 2016, 07:55 AM:
My guess is that Ginsberg was all set to retire and allow DICKWEED to appoint her successor when Scalia happened and the events erupted. Now she realizes she waited a bit too long. OH, DARN !
We cannot allow CANKLES to pick the next 3-5 seats on the Supreme Court! She aught to be defending herself in court, figuring out a way to stay out of prison. How in hell can Democrats ignore what she has done, ( I need not list deeds here) and still think she would make a great President; just like Obama?
Okay, so Republicans have no room to talk but they aren't giving away STATE SECRETS, at the moment. Human Intel, names of agents, and she didn't think that deserved "classification"?
If you want my opinion, she set up this "home brew" so that she could coerce foreign governments into donating to her foundation. I read recently that something like 85% of all expenditures of the foundation have been for travel expenses and luxury accommodations all over the world. Accurately described as a slush fund, if there ever was one. No wonder she deleted as much as she thought she could get away with?
The worst punishment ultimately, not being elected President.
IF THERE IS A GOD !
Good hunting. El Bee
UBB.classicTM
6.3.0