Posted on 08/22/2013 2:11:52 PM PDT by Delacon
In AMES, Iowa — For 30 long seconds on a Saturday early this month, Ted Cruz stood silent and beaming as hundreds of conservative activists showered him with heartfelt applause in a dimly lighted auditorium. Then he started up again.
“And that reaction right there,” he declared, pointing at the crowd with his thumb and forefinger together, “shows how we win this fight. If I were sitting in the Senate cloakroom, the reaction to that statement would be fundamentally different. I don’t know that I’m quick enough to dodge all the things that would be thrown at me.”
Just like that, Cruz summed up his first seven months as a U.S. senator and exposed the conundrum he represents for the Republican Party: a hero to the conservative base and a worry for the establishment.
Cruz, 42, is a full-bore conservative from Texas whose certitude and combativeness in defense of his positions have made him a rock star to the GOP’s far-right-leaning activists. The comment that brought the crowd to it feet was about shredding Obamacare at all costs.
But that certitude and combativeness also have made him one of the most controversial figures in the Senate, a lightning rod for public and private criticism from Democrats and Republicans alike. The question many are left to ponder as Cruz travels the country targeting President Obama’s health-care law is: What can he realistically hope to achieve in a Senate steeped in tradition and hierarchy as an eloquent yet sharply polarizing figure?
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
NBC? There isn’t even a common definition of NBC. It doesn’t matter any more anyway. Anyone can host SNL and anyone can become President. We need Cruz or someone like him with balls. The .0001% of NBC zealots will have to get the hell out of the way if he runs. screw them.
No JR. And if they did they would be violating the Constitution's proscribed functions, usually called separation of powers.
/johnny
Johnny, good question. It's not unlike asking "under the Constitution, who has lawful authority to write the Constitution." The Constitution is our legal foundation, and since we are a nation based upon laws, and not, as a monarchy, upon men. The Constitution, ratified by the sovereign states that United to form our nation, acquired its authority from the nine states who ratified the Constitution in 1787-1788 - "...deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
If you know about axiomatic systems, that is what is how I regard the articles and subsequent amendments. Axioms are statements you agree to accept as the foundation of a system, which our states did (but not all of them, just nine to begin with). You've heard of Euclid's Axioms, which have changed little over 2000+ years, and are the basis for, no surprise, Euclidean Geometry, the Geometry most of us have wrestled with, polygons and congruency. All of numerical mathematics can be derived from two amazingly simple notions, those of order, and the notion of belonging. Axioms are notions which seem reasonable to those who use them. Our Constitution and Declaration are based upon "Laws of Nature and Natures God", notions with which our founders agreed.
All of our laws should have been derived from our Articles and Amendments, but, as Obama told us, there are things he would like to do, but is prevented from doing by the Constitution. It is a collection of axioms of negative rights written to protect us from government.
The authority that deemed a natural born citizen a requirement for our president was all states who ratified the Constitution. Virtually all of our founders and framers used Vattel as their primary reference, and Jefferson based our Declaration upon Law of Nations and assigned it as our first law book. Hamilton cited Vattel as his most authoritative reference in letters to Washington.
One of Vattel's greatest influences was a philosopher known more as a mathematician, Gottlieb Leibniz, credited, along with Newton, for the invention of The Calculus. I perceive the influence of the axiomatic methodology of Leibniz in Vattel's writings. Vattel, as Leibniz, is very familiar with, and cites frequently, the Greek philosophers, including Aristotle, who explains natural born citizenship - 'native citizen'. This is not a new idea. Our founders and framers were almost all steeped in classical philosophy, and most of them were proficient in Latin, many in Greek, and most in French.
That is what constitutes common-law, not English common-law or Blackstone's common-law, but U.S. common-law. Constitutional definitions, as Madison explained, and Morrison Waite repeated, depend upon the common-law and language familiar to its framers.
Your handwave with a lot of words means nothing.
violating the Constitution's proscribed functions, usually called separation of powers.
Separation of power is how power is apportioned between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.
You are spouting utter bullcrap that 99% of American's won't even try to follow because there is no logic to it, just a constant repeat of your fantasy.
You have consigned yourself to oblivion and obscurity, and will be appropriately ignored by everyone with even half a brain.
/johnny
"our handwave with a lot of words means nothing."
Thank you Johnny. I wondered whether or not you were a troll.
For anyone still following whom you may have confused from Article 1 Section 8, “To Establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization” says noting about natural born citizenship. Every word must be assumed to have meaning. Of course, there are many who assume our framers were semi-literate, and sloppy with grammatical construction.
"Separation of power is how power is apportioned between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches."
"You are spouting utter bullcrap that 99% of American’s won't even try to follow because there is no logic to it, just a constant repeat of your fantasy."
So Congress can pass laws to interpret the Constitution? Congress could then pass a law affecting “A Well Regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Like every other term in the Constitution, none of those terms are defined in the Constitution. A Militia could be defined as Obama’s “Well Armed Militia, as big and as well equipped as our military. "Keep and bear" could mean arms in a armory, dispensed if and when our federal government deems necessary. "A Free State" means freedom from want, and freedom from having to defend oneself, and provided for by redistribution of wealth. For "Regulated" Congress could create another Cass Sunstein agency, probably controlled by the IRS. but limited to SEIU staff. Without separation of powers we have no need for a Constitution,
We have had many more skillful trolls. I hope my tax money is not paying for your services.
Well which is it, OF or OR????
You are an inconsequentional one trick pony, pounding your birther conspiracy. Your posting history proves that.
And you are long-winded.
I've been around here long enough, and enough people know me that it's pretty obvious that I'm not a troll.
Nice try though. Your birther theories are mainly ignored.
/johnny
You apparently don't realize it but you are making Cruz's point. Obama is the one who would refuse to sign the CR and thus he is the one who would be shutting down the government.
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.