Ted Cruz battles SCOTUS marriage decision, calls Republicans to join him

KPTV.com ^ | Jun 26, 2015 8:26 PM PDT

[SoConPubbie]

SHELDON, IOWA (KTIV/CNN) - Some Republican lawmakers had another reason to chastise the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday after it ruled same-sex marriage legal nationwide.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-TX, put his legislation where his mouth his, introducing an amendment to counteract the SCOTUS ruling. Cruz is a candidate for president in 2016.

[SoConPubbie]

I applaud him for trying something, but it’s pure symbolism. He would be better advised to introduce a bill limiting scotus’ ability to rule federal laws unconstitutional under Congress’ power per Article III. It wouldn’t pass either, though the bar is slightly lower, but it would shake people up and bring that power to light.

And you know it is symbolism how? Did God grant you the ability to read the hearts of men and know their motivations and he did not notify me that you have that ability?

Specious argument at best, and I doubt that from you given your posting history where Cruz is concerned.

Right now, using your filter, everything is symbolic given who is in leadership positions in the GOP-E and therefore, we should just resign ourselves to the status quo.

[SoConPubbie]

Of course, try telling that to your Congressman and you get a long, convoluted explanation of Senate and House “rules”. And even Cruz has told my Congressman that the “rule” currently in play that only one piece of legislation per year passes out of the Senate with 51 votes is a good rule. Everything else needs 60.

And you do not agree with that position why?

[SoConPubbie]

I’m reading elsewhere that we don’t need an amendment. A simple piece of legislation passed by a simple majority in both the house and the Senate would do the trick. According to what I read this AM on Western Journalism, this doesn’t even need the President’s signature.

Not possible at all. Everything that passes out of Congress must either be signed by POTUS or POTUS must be overridden by a 2/3rd's majority.

[afraidfortherepublic]

I think it is stupid for the Republicans to make an arbitrary rule that they would allow only one vote out of the Senate PER YEAR with 51 votes. Who decided the the word MAJORITY would suddenly mean 9 votes more than the majority?

It used to be even worse. They used to set the arbitrary number at 67 but rolled it back by a few years. The point is that all these arbitrary definitions for the word MAJORITY were set by Democrats. They could be changed by Republicans, but they do not have the will to do so.

[SoConPubbie]

I think it is stupid for the Republicans to make an arbitrary rule that they would allow only one vote out of the Senate PER YEAR with 51 votes. Who decided the the word MAJORITY would suddenly mean 9 votes more than the majority?

Why?

This puts a limit on the number of bills that get passed.

Given who controls the GOP-E, the Democrats, POTUS, and SCOTUS, do you really want them to do a bunch of legislating right now?

[afraidfortherepublic]

I refer you back to reply #16. The explanation is not mine. It was taken directly out of the notice I received this AM.

I guess I’m even more incensed that my Congressman seems to be beholden to certain (unnamed) “wealthy, successful, manufacturers” in his district who “don’t care” about gay marriage and the moral decline of this country.

No wonder Hillary can get by thumbing her nose at Congress over the emails and her Foundation. What rule of law?

I’m tired of defending these jackels.

[afraidfortherepublic]

I think that it undermines the Constitution.

[SoConPubbie]

I think that it undermines the Constitution.

How?

There is nothing in the Constitution that sets rules like this for Congress. It is up to the Congress to set their own rules for categories of votes for everything not explicitly set forward by the Constitution.

[DoodleDawg]

How about a law that says plainly that a SCOTUS decision that is rendered and deemed as creating a Law, which is not within the scope of the Court’s power under the Constitution, States can vote such a ruling of law invalid by a simple majority in their legislatures.

I still think that would need a Constitutional amendment, but even if it passed who gets to deem that the court created a law?

[afraidfortherepublic]

Have you ever heard of Pastor Nuemeyer (unsure of spelling)?

He who commented, “First they came for the Jews, but I said nothing...” We are watching our country go right down the drain and we say nothing?

[SoConPubbie]

I refer you back to reply #16. The explanation is not mine.

I've never heard of Congress being able to pass a bill without the President either signing it or being overridden by Congress if he refuses to sign the bill.

[afraidfortherepublic]

A majority is a majority except when Congress says something different. This is like Clinton’s definition of “is”.

Don’t mess with the Constitution.

[TBP]

Tell your friends to call him. Show him how “nobody cares”.

[TBP]

So true.

[SoConPubbie]

Have you ever heard of Pastor Nuemeyer (unsure of spelling)?

Is that the name of an actual Pastor or some type of legal term or something else?

[afraidfortherepublic]

You bet!

[Vermont Lt]

Its funny. In my town, there is hardly any “sex education.” In fact, there was less sex education in my kids school life than in mine thirty some years earlier.

Our school district is in a pretty high income, two parent household, high church attendance, and highly educated community.

We teach the kids about the dangers of premarital sex in our homes and through our actions.

99.5% of kids who start our schools finish. Most of them go on to college, almost none of the kids flunk out.

I would rather my kids get a latin class than a f*&king class.

[Hugin]

I haven’t resigned myself to anything, and I just suggested a course of action. But there’s no reason to kid ourselves about the chances of success. God gave us all the ability to reason, read public opinion polls, and look at the history of our elected representatives and past attempts to pass amendments. All that suggests an amendment will go nowhere.

And I do like Cruz, though I was disappointed with him on TPA and H1B visas. Still, he’s better than 99.9% of the politicians out there. I just don’t see him catching on and winning the nomination. If I’m wrong I’ll be happy.

[TBP]

Do both. Make them fight on two fronts. do it over and over.

[afraidfortherepublic]

Yes. That is the name of an actual Pastor whom eventually was executed in the Nazi death camps.

The full quote goes something like:

“First they came for the Jews, but I said nothing because I was not a Jew.

“Then they came for the Communists, but I said nothing because I was not a Communist.

“Then they came for me, and there was nobody left to speak for me...