Cruz Wrote Thesis On The 10th Amendment

[Listening]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...sonian-flair/2012/08/01/gJQApiwePX_story.html

Texas’s Ted Cruz gives tea party a Madisonian flair

Ted Cruz’s victory in Tuesday’s Texas Republican runoff for the U.S. Senate nomination is the most impressive triumph yet for the still-strengthening tea party impulse. And Cruz’s victory coincides with something conservatives should celebrate: the centennial of the 20th century’s most important intraparty struggle. By preventing former president Theodore Roosevelt from capturing the 1912 Republican presidential nomination from President William Howard Taft, the GOP deliberately doomed its chances for holding the presidency but kept its commitment to the Constitution.

Before Cruz, 41, earned a Harvard law degree magna cum laude, he wrote his Princeton senior thesis on the Constitution’s Ninth and 10th Amendments, which, if taken seriously, would revitalize two bulwarks of liberty: the ideas that the federal government’s powers are limited because they are enumerated and that the enumeration of certain rights does not “deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

********************

More as time goes on.

Hamilton was a liar.

I have yet to read the account of his taking one between the eyes and feel any sadness at all.

The election of 1800 was all about this rift and it showed just what the country was after.

Progressives can't stand that they can't use the USC to tell you how thick a sheet of toilet paper can be.....

 

[tererun]

The tea party really needs a presidential candidate that is completely their own and not republican. I am rooting for those guys.

 

[eflatminor]

Taft ...achieved something far grander than a second term: the preservation of the GOP as an intellectual counterbalance to the Democrats’ thorough embrace of progressivism and the “living” — actually, disappearing — Constitution.

RINOs have been infecting the GOP for some time now.

 

[Listening]

From The Article:

Both (the 9th and 10th amendments) ideas are repudiated by today’s progressives, as they were by TR, whose Bull Moose Party, the result of his bolt from the GOP, convened in Chicago 100 years ago Sunday, Aug. 5, 1912.

After leaving the presidency in 1909, TR went haywire. He had always chafed under constitutional restraints, but he had remained a Hamiltonian, construing the Constitution expansively but respectfully. By 1912, however, he had become what the Democratic nominee, Woodrow Wilson, was — an anti-Madisonian. Both thought the Constitution, the enumeration and separation of powers, intolerably crippled government.

Espousing unconstrained majoritarianism, TR disdained James Madison’s belief that the ultimate danger is wherever ultimate power resides, which in a democracy is with the majority. He endorsed the recall of state judicial decisions and by September 1912 favored the power to recall all public officials, including the president.

TR’s anti-constitutional excesses moved two political heroes to subordinate personal affection to the public interest. New York Sen. Elihu Root had served TR as secretary of war and secretary of state, and he was Roosevelt’s first choice to succeed him in 1908. Massachusetts Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge had long been one of TR’s closest friends. Both sided with Taft.

***************************

A Tea Party Madisonian.

It does not get much better than that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Will of course is entitled to engage in political fantasy and historical revisionism. But the courts follow Constitutional case law, as must Congress, and that case law determines the limits of Federal power, not naïve and ignorant neo-populists from the TPM.

 

[Listening]

Will of course is entitled to engage in political fantasy and historical revisionism. But the courts follow Constitutional case law, as must Congress, and that case law determines the limits of Federal power, not naïve and ignorant neo-populists from the TPM.

Ah, but with the wave of a wand, the final authority has spoken.

Kinda like in Citizens United.

FDR's kangaroo court certainly didn't follow case law and nothing is ever ever completely settled.

If so, why does Ted (so glad you're dead) Kennedy rail on Roberts about not losing the gains of the part 40 years ? What was Ted (so glad you're dead) worried about ?

But even then, we can see just what Cruz brings. After all, he's a senator. And he'll vote on future justices. And if there are enough GOP in the senate....we'll get more justices like Scalia.

Then Ted (so glad you're dead) can roll over in his grave as we trash all of his gains of the last 40 years.

Nothing is ever ever settled for good.

 

[Listening]

Continuing:

Today, many of the tea party’s academic despisers portray it as anti-democratic and anti-intellectual. Actually, it stands, as did the forgotten heroes of 1912, with Madison, the most intellectually formidable Founder. He created, and the tea party defends, a constitutional architecture that does not thwart democracy but refines it, on the fact that in a republic, which is defined by the principle of representation, the people do not directly decide issues, they decide who will decide. And the things representatives are permitted to decide are strictly circumscribed by constitutional limits on federal power.

TR sought to make these limits few and as flimsy as cobwebs when the people chose to amend them by plebiscitary methods. The New Republic, then a voice of progressivism, ridiculed Root for being “committed to the theory of government, based upon natural rights” — the Declaration of Independence’s theory of pre-political rights. Schambra, however, argues that for Root and Lodge, as for today’s tea party, the rights proclaimed in the Declaration and the restrictions that the Constitution imposes on government are inseparably linked, as Root said, to “the end that individual liberty might be preserved.”

******************

You just can't enough of George Will.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama wrote his thesis on...

 

[GuyPinestra]

Obama wrote his thesis on...

Dissolving paper with invisible ink...?

 

[Katzndogz]

Obama wrote his thesis on...

No one knows but his wife got special permission to write her thesis on how Princeton proved how racist they were by basically giving her everything she asked for, except acceptance among others in the student body who were real racists by not immediately kissing her ass.

 

[Listening]

Focus people.

Focus.

 

[Listening]

Here is an interesting article. From the woman who helped put Michigan in the hole.

Extremist => Anyone who would make me work for my government money.

Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm: Tea Party: Thank You for Your Insanity

 

[buckeye45_73]

Will of course is entitled to engage in political fantasy and historical revisionism. But the courts follow Constitutional case law, as must Congress, and that case law determines the limits of Federal power, not naïve and ignorant neo-populists from the TPM.

Sorry Clayton, but you KNOW that's a LIE.... Do you really think the court wouldnt ok an income tax without the 16th amendment, I'm guessing with the living document they would find it somewhere, dont you?

 

[buckeye45_73]

Obama wrote his thesis on...

hoiw to make a campaign about tax returns and other really really important issues.

 

[Listening]

Obama wrote his thesis on...

hoiw to make a campaign about tax returns and other really really important issues.

It is amazing isn't it.

UE at 8.2% and the forecasts looking bad.

Obama says he needs four more years (to do what ?).

And we are talking about:

Security at the olympics (which Romney was right about).

Tax Returns.

Birth Certificates.

It has become clear to me that someone has decided that the partisans have made up their minds and that Romney is going to bull rush this thing after the convention.

I am so looking forward to November.

Cruz is going to be a nice add. He almost sounds like Ron Paul. If he can hang tough, he can help bring the country back to what made it great.....not having half the country on the dole.

 

[Katzndogz]

Obama wrote his thesis on...

hoiw to make a campaign about tax returns and other really really important issues.

It is amazing isn't it.

UE at 8.2% and the forecasts looking bad.

Obama says he needs four more years (to do what ?).

And we are talking about:

Security at the olympics (which Romney was right about).

Tax Returns.

Birth Certificates.

It has become clear to me that someone has decided that the partisans have made up their minds and that Romney is going to bull rush this thing after the convention.

I am so looking forward to November.

Cruz is going to be a nice add. He almost sounds like Ron Paul. If he can hang tough, he can help bring the country back to what made it great.....not having half the country on the dole.

UE is no longer at 8.2. It's 8.3. obama will have to work harder to make it all about the tax returns.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Serious question here: Do you think your disappointment in politicians come from the comparisons of every new guy of being the new Regan, Madison etc?

 

[Listening]

Serious question here: Do you think your disappointment in politicians come from the comparisons of every new guy of being the new Regan, Madison etc?

The answer lies in the conversation that people don't seem to be willing to have.

The federal government was supposed to be a limited government.

The state government were supposed to be where the action was at (Denmark has great healthcare.....Denmark is the size of Wisconsin....can't Wisconsin decide if it wants state run healthcare ?). I don't understand why people got pissed at Romney for Romneycare. That was the way it was supposed to work.....states choose. The federal government has taken over way to much stuff and tried to homogonize 310,000,000 people. They also pick winners and losers.

Reagan was backbone. Reagan really wasn't all that great a conservative in many ways.

Madison had it right. Our governors should have been our heros. The president should be in the background just keeping the borders tight and protected.

So when you say disappointment. My disappointment is different for different people at different levels.

 

[eflatminor]

Serious question here: Do you think your disappointment in politicians come from the comparisons of every new guy of being the new Regan, Madison etc?

The answer lies in the conversation that people don't seem to be willing to have.

The federal government was supposed to be a limited government.

The state government were supposed to be where the action was at (Denmark has great healthcare.....Denmark is the size of Wisconsin....can't Wisconsin decide if it wants state run healthcare ?). I don't understand why people got pissed at Romney for Romneycare. That was the way it was supposed to work.....states choose. The federal government has taken over way to much stuff and tried to homogonize 310,000,000 people. They also pick winners and losers.

Reagan was backbone. Reagan really wasn't all that great a conservative in many ways.

Madison had it right. Our governors should have been our heros. The president should be in the background just keeping the borders tight and protected.

So when you say disappointment. My disappointment is different for different people at different levels.

All true. Madison understood that the framers took the time to specifically enumerate the powers (18 of them in Article I) and that the general welfare clause was not to supersede them. He once said "for what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?"

What most people don't realize is that even the most Federalist of the founders would NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS support the level of central planning and statism we face today. The Federalist supported a stronger central government than the Article of Confederation allowed, but not even Hamilton would support the horrific abuse of the commerce and general welfare clause we're dealing with (I guess we can add the power to tax to that list of abuses now...thanks a lot Roberts!).

My favorite founder was Patrick Henry, not because of his bold "Give me liberty or give me death" statement but because he was one of the few that foresaw the rise of Progressivism by warning that the commerce and general welfare clauses were ripe for future abuse. He was right.

 

[Listening]

Today, Paul Krugman decided to give us his wisdom on the subject of nullification – by saying almost nothing at all. In a short blog post, linking to a “report” by ThinkProgress, he notes – laughingly – that a Senate Candidate in Texas supports the idea of states nullifying acts on Congress. He doesn’t say a thing about nullification, but he’s obviously brushing it off as idiotic. As Tom Woods wrote on his blog today, “Paul Krugman thinks the idea of state nullification of unconstitutional laws is so self-evidently stupid that he doesn’t even need to offer an argument against it.”

Digging a little deeper – just a little, mind you – you’ll see that the ThinkProgress article he linked to was referring to Ted Cruz, who had a proposal where two or more states could work together to refuse compliance with the Affordable Care Act. Not outright nullification, but we certainly know that non-compliance in large numbers can in fact nullify a federal law.

*******************

The more I read about Cruz, the more I like him.