Ryan is just whoring himself so one of his pimps, Cook in this case, will give him spending money.
Whatever ambiguity some may claim as to the Constitutional intent on other issues, there is absolute clarity as to the functional intent with respect to one overriding issue. That issue, the primary issue in the 2016 Presidential campaign is clearly to determine whom the new President will have the duty to serve; whose interests must be honored; which people must be favored. To address this issue, we start with the stated purpose of the Constituion--the avowed intent of the framers--the ratified intent of the subscribing States--the Preamble:
We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
"The people" to define the purpose & function of the Constitution, were beyond any question, the people of the specific ratifying States, in 1787 to 1791. "Justice" can sometimes be rather an abstract concept, but "domestic tranquility," obviously is our domestic tranquility, not the promotion of anything abroad, not calling for meddling with other peoples lives. (Nor will reviewing the specific grants of power that follow, suggest any non-American focus or purpose for either.)
The "common defence," both from the obvious context, as well as the specific grants of function that follow, is clearly the common protection of the people of the 13 sovereign States that ratified; as, indeed, the "general Welfare" is that generally beneficial of those same specific peoples.
Finally, with unmistakable clarity, is the language that identifies who precisely are to be the beneficiaries of the secured "Blessings of Liberty": The Founders & their "posterity"; the lineal descendants of those specific peoples; the descendants of the Founders, down through the generations.
Is anything in this interpretation, even arguable? Does this statement of intent waffle in anyway, as an indication of whose interest is to be favored on any Constitutional question that involves Americans on the one hand, and any other people under the sun? Is there anything in this that suggests a duty to allow any other people a right--that is a Constitutional right to demand entrance into America; or to demand anything from the American Government under a claim of legal or moral right?
Now granted, a great many of us, our selves included, trace our ancestry to those who came after the Constitutional Union was established. Thus, our personal rights of participation grow out of acceptance into those communities Blessed with that secured Liberty in the various States. They do not, by anything in the Constitution, create a departure from the Constitutional purpose or concept. Nor can anyone, in office, claim a moral right to alter the intent & functional purpose, he has sworn to uphold, on his own initiative.
Those Republicans, such as Speaker Ryan, who wring their hands in the public media, over Donald Trump's sometimes blunt ways of explaining alternatives, may try to cloud these points. They cannot rebut them if we stick to the obvious. If you honor Constitutional intent, in all things relating to the behavior of the American Government, you must always put America & the Americans first.
When challenged, the unapologetic Conservative American should simply return to the basic concept!
Yet note: Nothing, in what we have written, will prevent anyone, who feels a calling to preach their Faith to the people of another land; or to become a medical missionary in some far off country; or to pursue any particular calling or interest anywhere on earth; from doing so. All it does, is define what one can do with respect to the resources, functional duties, powers and policy imperatives, entrusted to the Government of the Unites States.
That is the point. And properly argued, it is the key to victory--to Donald Trump's victory & to America's victory!
What about Scott Walker’s comments to the convention delegates about going there own way?