Cruz Wrote Thesis On The 10th Amendment

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.

:clap2:

RINOs have been infecting the GOP for some time now.

Most of the Tea Party members I know of were ardent Bush supporting RINO's.
 
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.

:clap2:

RINOs have been infecting the GOP for some time now.

Most of the Tea Party members I know of were ardent Bush supporting RINO's.

Of course, I was referring to RINOs a hundred years ago...but I'll address your point anyway:

Really? How many TP events have you been to?

I've been to dozens and my experience does not mirror yours. The TP members I've spoken with are focused on limited government, which is not a RINO trait. Bush is usually commented upon as "Spent too much" and "Meddled in health care too much". Further, if you look at the tenants of the various TP groups around the country, you'll not see anything that supports big government or the cronyism required to be a RINO . Perhaps your local TP group, which I'm sure you've come to know well, is different than mine.
 
Last edited:
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.

Are you crazy? Cruz sounds like a latino name. I am told by liberals that Republicans are all racists and only vote for WASP's. (sarcasm)
 
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.

:clap2:

RINOs have been infecting the GOP for some time now.

Most of the Tea Party members I know of were ardent Bush supporting RINO's.

You should get out more.

Are you crazy? Cruz sounds like a latino name. I am told by liberals that Republicans are all racists and only vote for WASP's. (sarcasm)

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you through my white sheet [in jest].
 
Last edited:
The tea party really needs a presidential candidate that is completely their own and not republican. I am rooting for those guys.
Nope.

The T.E.A. party plans on supplanting the current liberals INSIDE the GOP, once again, making it a conservative party.
 
:clap2:

RINOs have been infecting the GOP for some time now.

Most of the Tea Party members I know of were ardent Bush supporting RINO's.

You should get out more.

Are you crazy? Cruz sounds like a latino name. I am told by liberals that Republicans are all racists and only vote for WASP's. (sarcasm)

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you through my white sheet [in jest].
LOL

Yep. Most of the T.E.A. party people I associate with really don't like George Bush; either one.
 
George Will: Texas’s Ted Cruz gives tea party a Madisonian flair - The Washington Post

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.....

Is that why the president and vice president were elected by the senate and not the populace as the original Constitutionall government practiced?
Where was the enumerated powers then?
 
“If the federal government has the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, warned the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions’ authors (James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, respectively), it will continue to grow – regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on government power.”
–Thomas E. Woods

And Cruz is pretty good on some other things:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/242257-cruz-tea-party-stronger-now-than-in-2010

Fresh off his come-from-behind Senate primary victory, former Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz (R) said the Tea Party movement that helped propel his campaign is even stronger now than it was two years ago.

"This is part of a tidal wave that began in 2010 and that tidal wave is only stronger in 2012," he told Fox News's Chris Wallace Sunday morning. "Those protests died down. I think the reason is the Tea Party went to work."

Cruz said the movement would work hard on Mitt Romney's behalf to defeat President Obama this fall in order to "get the boot of the federal government off the neck of small business."
The Cuban-American candidate, who is heavily favored to win election, also said that Romney could make inroads with Hispanic voters based on shared values.

"I think the Hispanic community, the values that resonate in our community, are fundamentally conservative. They are faith, family, patriotism," he said, pointing out that Hispanics enlist in the military at a higher rate than any other demographic group and saying he'd "never once seen a Hispanic panhandler because in our community it would be viewed as shameful to be out on the street begging."

Cruz then said Romney could make inroads with Hispanics by attacking Obama's economic record with statistics tailored towards the community, something the Romney campaign has already done.

"I think what Gov. Romney needs to do and I think what he is doing is defending those values and making the case that the Obama agenda has been incredibly destructive to the Hispanic community," he said. "Hispanic unemployment is higher than the national average and when the federal government is killing small businesses and killing jobs it is hurting the future of the Hispanic community and we need to carry that message."
 
Last edited:
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.

From Dobbs (the case where the court didn't follow case law).

Writing for the court majority, Justice Samuel Alito said that the 1973 Roe ruling and repeated subsequent high court decisions reaffirming Roe "must be overruled" because they were "egregiously wrong," the arguments "exceptionally weak" and so "damaging" that they amounted to "an abuse of judicial authority."

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

And it was.

Your statement is so wrong it is scary. The courts follow the Constitution. Where case law exists, they consult it and they look very hard at it before changing directions (like they have hundreds of times).

But they are in NO WAY bound by it.
 
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.

I've never been a fan of Paul Krugman.

 

Forum List

Back
Top