2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Black Swan

alaimacerc wrote: »

That risk exists, but at present the SC has never ruled on the meaning at all, so the uncertainty is higher than if it had. But yes, "definitive" is never actually thus. One SC could have (say) disqualified McCain, then a later might have ruled Cruz eligible, despite having a weaker claim, simply deciding the earlier ruling was incorrect. Bound by no precedent, etc. That would be unusually drastic, not to say shameless.

Some have questioned if the US Supreme Court is not immune from being biased; i.e. court stacking during times when one party has control of the Executive and Congress filling vacancies with justices having favoured ideological positions. If so, reinterpretations and rulings of the vague original words in the Constitution regarding qualifications for president may vary over years with stacking alinements.

Manach

Then again there is a rather broad originality movement, with a figurehead of Antonia Scalia which holds that the text of the constitution is clear and should be read in the context as it was meant to be interpreted by the writers. From some readings of Scalia cases, this seems to be a stance he has mostly followed with the argument to the modern day interpreters being that there are mechanisms involved with changing the constitution should the need arise which have been activated on prior occasions.

Brian?

Personally I have no issue with Cruz running. I do question his legitimacy to run though. Why isn't Donald Trump all over the issue the way he was with Obama?

I can't see him winning the nominations but he'd make a handy running mate for Jeb Bush.

MightyMandarin

Brian? wrote: »

Personally I have no issue with Cruz running. I do question his legitimacy to run though. Why isn't Donald Trump all over the issue the way he was with Obama?

I can't see him winning the nominations but he'd make a handy running mate for Jeb Bush.

Because Obama is a black democrat.... and also because Trump is a flat out idiot with the single worst comb-over in the history of mankind.

Black Swan

Manach wrote: »

Then again there is a rather broad originality movement, with a figurehead of Antonia Scalia which holds that the text of the constitution is clear and should be read in the context as it was meant to be interpreted by the writers.

Which US Constitution "context?" The original US Constitution was value-laden and exhibited the spirit and intent of its authors in a very different world over two centuries ago. It replaced the Articles of Confederation on 17 September 1787 (ratified in 1789). For example, slavery and involuntary servitude were extensively practiced and allowed by this original US Constitution.

Or the Amended Constitution? It was not until the 13th Amendment was passed three-quarters of a century later by Congress on 31 January 1865, and ratified on 6 December 1865 that slavery and involuntary servitude were outlawed (except for those convicted of a crime and imprisoned).

If the original 1787 US Constitutional document was "clear and should be read in the context as it was meant to be interpreted by the writers" over two centuries ago, why were there Amendments? Did the "contexts" change overtime?

Methinks that the qualifications for president are not "clear" in terms of where they were born as a qualification, and that is why the controversies and reinterpretations have occurred overtime, regardless if reading the original US Constitution text in 1787 context, or reading the Amendments that occurred later in their respective time-bound and value-laden contexts.

Manach

Context is exactly what it means. That the human nature has not changed overly much in the preceding two centuries and historical and legal mileau is still noticeable the same . Thus what was written down as a guide to the laws of the land mean as it, not what a judicial appointment believes it now means when trying to craft their own version of the law. If change is needed, then up to the mechanisms that are in place to change it, ie the Amendments. Otherwise the value of a constitution becomes nothing more than a fig-leaf for rule by judges.

alaimacerc

Black Swan wrote: »

Some have questioned if the US Supreme Court is not immune from being biased; i.e. court stacking during times when one party has control of the Executive and Congress filling vacancies with justices having favoured ideological positions. If so, reinterpretations and rulings of the vague original words in the Constitution regarding qualifications for president may vary over years with stacking alinements.

As I say, it's possible. But it's more likely to happen before there's an initial SC ruling, in which event the first such can say it's simply interpolating the ancient law and making the call, than if it blatantly reverses an earlier decision on the basis of no materially different facts at all. (Not that that hasn't happened from time to time, too.)

Black Swan

Manach wrote: »

Context is exactly what it means. That the human nature has not changed overly much in the preceding two centuries.

On the contrary, methinks that there has been significant and extraordinary change in human nature and the laws that pertain to it in the past two centuries. When the 1787 US Constitution was written by its authors, the cultural context was markedly different than today, where slavery and involuntary servitude were commonplace, and the lack of women's emancipation and suffrage were not conceptualised or anticipated. We could add to this list of dramatic changes that reflect, impact, and interact with human nature as the result of the increasing speed of its change associated with extraordinary science discoveries and technology innovations unimaginable by 1787 Constitutional authors.

Back-To-The-Future interpretations of 1787 Constitutional context are problematic. More than likely today's value-laden (re)interpretations and historical revisionism will be driven by powerful special interests that stand to gain; i.e., today's powerful special interests wolf hiding in the 1787 sheep's pseudo-context Constitutional clothing.

Once again, if the Constitution was "clear" regarding the birth qualifications for president back in 1787, why the later Amendments, and why the ambiguity, confusion and problems today regarding Obama, McCain, and Cruz?

Paleface

Ted Cruz was a political advisor to G W Bush during his campaign for POTUS in 1999.

His wife is a regional manager for Goldman Sachs and she was previously an advisor for Condolezza Rice.

So while he portrays himself as coming from a different background and is in touch with grassroots he is in reality far from it.

Black Swan

Paleface wrote: »

Ted Cruz was a political advisor to G W Bush during his campaign for POTUS in 1999.

This connection between Cruz and the Bush Dynasty may be only coincidental in the forthcoming GOP primaries, then again such a connection may be decisive should Cruz fail to win the nomination, and is later selected to run as Jeb Bush's VP running mate.

Madd Finn

Oh ****!!!!! I realise that Cruz has a bit of Irish in him. I can see it all now.

"O'Leary, O'Lowry, O'Rourke and O'Hara
There's no-one more Irish than......Ted Cruz!"

Please, God. NOOOO!!!

MightyMandarin

Paleface wrote: »

Ted Cruz was a political advisor to G W Bush during his campaign for POTUS in 1999.

His wife is a regional manager for Goldman Sachs and she was previously an advisor for Condolezza Rice.

So while he portrays himself as coming from a different background and is in touch with grassroots he is in reality far from it.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/ted-cruz-enroll-obamacare-116363.html?ml=po

So it seems his wife is quitting her job at Goldman to work for his campaign full time and has decided to go on 'Obamacare' since she's no longer covered by her job.

Literally a day after entering the presidential race, the biggest opponent of 'Obamacare' has proved himself to be a total hypocrite.

eire4

MightyMandarin wrote: »

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/ted-cruz-enroll-obamacare-116363.html?ml=po

So it seems his wife is quitting her job at Goldman to work for his campaign full time and has decided to go on 'Obamacare' since she's no longer covered by her job.

Literally a day after entering the presidential race, the biggest opponent of 'Obamacare' has proved himself to be a total hypocrite.

Wow that does seem crazy given how much Cruz has spoken against the health care act. Wonder why he didn't just go get his own helath care privately.

Brian?

eire4 wrote: »

Wow that does seem crazy given how much Cruz has spoken against the health care act. Wonder why he didn't just go get his own helath care privately.

Probably because the exchanges offer the most choice an value? Something he'd like to end.

Amerika

MightyMandarin wrote: »

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/ted-cruz-enroll-obamacare-116363.html?ml=po

So it seems his wife is quitting her job at Goldman to work for his campaign full time and has decided to go on 'Obamacare' since she's no longer covered by her job.

Literally a day after entering the presidential race, the biggest opponent of 'Obamacare' has proved himself to be a total hypocrite.

*** Shakes head and laughs***

Cruz was getting health care insurance through his wife's employer. His wife took a leave of absence while he runs, and lost their health care insurance.

The law says you must have health care insurance.

Cruz now must get his insurance through his employer - Congress. Our laws now state that US Senators must suffer the same as us mere morals and get their health care insurance through the exchange - Obamacare.

Cruz also fights against our income tax structure. Do we call him a hypocrite for paying income taxes as dictated by law?

Paleface

Couldn't they have gotten their health insurance privately and not gone through Obamacare at all?

Amerika

Paleface wrote: »

Couldn't they have gotten their health insurance privately and not gone through Obamacare at all?

If he did it wouldn't have been subsidized by his employer - Congress.

Paleface

Amerika wrote: »

If he did it wouldn't have been subsidized by his employer - Congress.

To someone who is running on the platform of vehemently opposing the law itself, why use it just to get the employer subsidy? Can they not afford it without the subsidy?!

This is bad press for him and embarassing that its come to light the second day into his campaign. Surely they could have gone private and avoided this controversary altogether?

Edit: In this video he says they are not being subsidised and are getting it the same way as any normal citizen.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/24/politics/ted-cruz-obamacare/index.html

Thargor

This is why I love American elections

Brian?

To be fair, Cruz did the most logical thing when he used the exchange to purchase healthcare for himself and his loved ones. It's hard to actually criticise him for it.

There are so many illogical things to criticise him for, it really pales in comparison.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/your-handy-guide-to-presidential-candidate-ted-cruz_b_6934000.html

Brian?

Given the cartoonish nature of Ted's outburst, this is a handy reference point.



http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ted-cruz/statements/

Amerika

Paleface wrote: »

Edit: In this video he says they are not being subsidised and are getting it the same way as any normal citizen.[/url]

Perhaps when I used the term “subsidize,” it was a bit confusing. What I was trying to convey was that members of Congress are required to obtain their health care coverage via health insurance exchanges (ObamaCare), and Congress pays most of the premium.

Paleface

Amerika wrote: »

Perhaps when I used the term “subsidize,” it was a bit confusing. What I was trying to convey was that members of Congress are required to obtain their health care coverage via health insurance exchanges (ObamaCare), and Congress pays most of the premium.

They are not required to get their health insurance through the exchange. They can get it privately if they like. Congress just won't pay for it if they do that.

So again I ask, can he not afford to pay for it all himself? Or would he rather the government pay for it and accept the hand out?

Either way he's breaking one of his core running platforms.

eire4

Paleface wrote: »

They are not required to get their health insurance through the exchange. They can get it privately if they like. Congress just won't pay for it if they do that.

So again I ask, can he not afford to pay for it all himself? Or would he rather the government pay for it and accept the hand out?

Either way he's breaking one of his core running platforms.

That is what has surprised me so much about this. Ted Cruz has been a vociferous critic of Obama's health care act to put it mildly so I do not understand why he is not getting a health plan privately. He is on record as wanting to repeal this legislation asap.

Amerika

Paleface wrote: »

They are not required to get their health insurance through the exchange. They can get it privately if they like. Congress just won't pay for it if they do that.

So again I ask, can he not afford to pay for it all himself? Or would he rather the government pay for it and accept the hand out?

Either way he's breaking one of his core running platforms.

Why should he pay for it himself if is part of the job package? He's not breaking one of his core running platforms. He wants to get rid of what he considers a lousy law. But he still follows the law.

Perhaps tomorrow's shock headline will read: “Cruz wants to abolish IRS, yet continues to pay taxes.”

MightyMandarin

Amerika wrote: »

Why should he pay for it himself if is part of the job package? He's not breaking one of his core running platforms. He wants to get rid of what he considers a lousy law. But he still follows the law.

Perhaps tomorrow's shock headline will read: “Cruz wants to abolish IRS, yet continues to pay taxes.”

Whatever way you look at it, Cruz and his family have more than enough money to pay for private insurance. The fact he chose the cheaper option in 'Obamacare' may seem economical and correct, but in this context of him wanting to be President he comes off like a right clown and a hypocrite. It's a poor political mistake and while it's not a 'dealbreaker', if he's making these amateur errors so early into his campaign, only God knows how much worse his campaign could get.

Paleface

Amerika wrote: »

But he still follows the law.

He doesn't have to follow it the way he is though. Its a deliberate choice to go through the exchange.

He's said he won't take the subsidy but to be honest I don't believe him in that. Not now!

He's being a hypocrite and this will inevitably hurt his campaign in the primaries.

Amerika

Paleface wrote: »

He doesn't have to follow it the way he is though. Its a deliberate choice to go through the exchange.

Yup, and I’d say pretty savvy on his part. He states “I believe we should follow the text of every law, even law I disagree with.” Then goes on to say “If you look at President Obama and the lawlessness, if he disagrees with a law he simply refuses to follow it or claims the authority to unilaterally change.” Ouch.

He's said he won't take the subsidy but to be honest I don't believe him in that. Not now!

I'd believe him before Hillary Clinton any day of the week.

He's being a hypocrite and this will inevitably hurt his campaign in the primaries.

The champion of abolishing ObamaCare is now forced into ObamaCare to suffer just like us mere mortals!!! Not a bad political angle.

Amerika

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Whatever way you look at it, Cruz and his family have more than enough money to pay for private insurance. The fact he chose the cheaper option in 'Obamacare' may seem economical and correct, but in this context of him wanting to be President he comes off like a right clown and a hypocrite. It's a poor political mistake and while it's not a 'dealbreaker', if he's making these amateur errors so early into his campaign, only God knows how much worse his campaign could get.

Hillary and Bill charge what... $250,000 to $500,000 per speaking engagement, plus perks. Their foundation takes in millions from suspect countries and whispers of pay-to-play abound. Not a word. Yet it's Cruz who should sacrifice? Give me a break.

MightyMandarin

Amerika wrote: »

Hillary and Bill charge what... $250,000 to $500,000 per speaking engagement, plus perks. Their foundation takes in millions from suspect countries and whispers of pay-to-play abound. Not a word. Yet it's Cruz who should sacrifice? Give me a break.

They're hardly the first politicians to charge ridiculous amounts of money to attend events, and considering that every Presidential candidate ever has attended events with the sole intention of securing money from donors, it's hardly a major blow to their integrity.

But as I said before, it's very, very early into this campaign, and Cruz already looks like an idiot; I do wonder how much worse his campaign can get.

I agree with post someone made a few pages back about his main goal probably being the VP. He'd have to be mad to think he can get independent moderates on his side due to his very conservative views and the shutdown last year. He's probably hoping to generate enough votes in the primaries in the hope that Bush or Christie sees him as a threat and offers him the nomination.