Posted on 07/02/2015 9:48:44 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
“Can’t? Our current leader is doing Many THINGS THAT HE “cAN’T” DO- tHE SUPREME COURT IS MAKING LAWS THAT HTEY “cAN’T’ MAKE woops cps lock sorry-
I’ll ask again “Is there any candidate who WILL stand up to these bullies on the supreme court?”
You’re welcome!
I believe that is generally true and it's the reason I have not stricken him from consideration.
However, I DO disagree with him (and the USSC)on whether TPA is an unconstitutional bypass of Article II, Section II.
Ted Cruz subscribes to that recent decision that says a Treaty is whatever the Congress and POTUS agrees is a Treaty.
I still have him on the list though, so far, I prefer Trump.
WE DEFINITELY NEED Carly bashing Hitlery only a woman can do this on a consistent basis without being called sexist!!!! I do like Carly and she is serving her purpose in this race!!!!!
[[That’s why Ted has been urging clerks in Texas to ignore this ruling.]]
He should be demanding that they ignore it- and getting other states to join him in civil disobedience
This isn’t just a friendly chess match- the left are playing hardball and we NEED to do so as well- The left are DESTROYING this country and everything our forefathers fought and DIED for- and it’s happening rapidly! What the left are doing isn’t just ‘friendly disagreements’ anymore- they are VIOLATING our constitutional rights! and the SC is violating their oaths and violating law- and since the ruling was a violation of law it is invalid and does not need to be followed! The SC gave NO valid reason for redefining marriage- none!
Totally false. Not only does the latest version of TPA include new language expressly stating that the House or Senate can dismantle the “fast-track” rules for various “disapproval” reasons, but—even more importantly—Congress has always retained this power because it has plenary authority over its rules of procedure, including “fast track.”
The new TPA, like previous versions before it, acknowledges this fact in Sec. 106(c), which states that the fast-track rules are enacted as “as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of Representatives and the Senate,” but “with the full recognition of the constitutional right of either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the procedures of that House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as any other rule of that House.” The CRS summary of TPA reiterates this fact: “Congress reserves its constitutional right to withdraw or override the expedited procedures for trade implementing bills, which can take effect with a vote by either House of Congress.”
Such power is not merely theoretical. It is precisely what then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi did to the Colombia FTA in 2008 after President Bush submitted its implementing legislation. Her move effectively dismantled the “fast track” procedures and thus delayed congressional consideration of the agreement indefinitely.
In short, Congress retains total control over the FTA implementation process under TPA and can only be bound by the “fast track” rules if it wants to be bound.
Sensing a theme here yet?
how does the current administration do it? Same way!
That would by news to many folks here...
Caps do not make your argument any more cogent.
Just because Obama is a lawless SOB, Cruz should be as well ?
Well, we do refer to this issue as illegal immigration, right?
I hope he means what he says about enforcing the law on immigration. To me, that means systematic deportation.
They are trespassers, and insurgents.
I think that if you believe in the rule of law, you have to accept the latest ruling of the SCOTUS. You have to abide by it, but you do not have to agree with it.
From a religious perspective, I do not believe in gay marriage. As a matter of law in MA, it is something we have had to deal with for several years now.
As long as they do not “force” my church to marry gays, that is the best I can do right now.
[[What’s he going to do, hold a gun to their heads and DEMAND they do it?]]
Pass law-
I think she’s pulling for the VP spot. She is the only one who can go after Hillary with out the sexist card being played.
There’s the question that needs to be asked on a regular basis:
“If we as individuals have the right to keep uninvited guests out of our own homes, why do we as a nation not have the right to keep uninvited guests out of our country?”.
> “Also consider a majority of Americans actually agree with the court...”
Says who? CNN?
If Hillary has to play the victim card, then it needs to be pointed out that she is too thin skinned to be running. Hillary whining? I don’t think it will play well.
The Globalists have been moving along without hindrance for a very long time....now we're seeing some resistance...but not yet strong enough to do more than slow it down currently.
Will be interesting to see who gets on the wagon to stop them...if they can be stopped....some big players out there now..and we're watching their hands being played.
with a simple majority of the house, yes-
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.