Posted on 01/13/2016 11:39:17 PM PST by Helicondelta
For months, Ted Cruz has laughed off Donald Trump's barbs, berated reporters who mentioned him and gone to near-comic lengths to publicly express enthusiasm for the real estate mogul's rival candidacy.
Cruz isn't laughing anymore.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Trump isn’t instinctively conservative. But he is instinctively pro American.
There’s an old saying Beware of Polutico reporters bearing gifts.
Katie Glueck is a national political reporter at POLITICO, where she covers the 2016 presidential election. Her work has also appeared in publications including the Wall Street Journal, the Austin American-Statesman, the Kansas City Star and Washingtonian magazine. She is a graduate of the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University, and is a native of Kansas City
http://www.politico.com/staff/katie-glueck
Her articles seem all pro Cruz. Don’t know if that’s a bad sign or a good sign.
Republicans are going to have to ask themselves the question about Trump: ‘Do we want a candidate who could be in a mental hospital in two years?’ That’d be a big problem. It’d be a very precarious one for Republicans because he’d be running and then he would break down at some point. You don’t want to be running and have that kind of thing over your head.
I’d hate to see something like that get in his way. But a lot of people are talking about it and I know that even some mental health professionals have concerns, the fact that he shows clear signs of mental instability and could break down at any point.
Here’s what I think I’d do: I’d go and seek a full psychiatric screening if I was Donald. You go see a psychiatrist. You go to a doctor to ask for what’s called a psychological screening. You go in seeking a clean bill of psychiatric health from the doctor, even if you think you’re doing just great. That’s part of the problem with mental illness, it’s hard to detect in yourself. Donald could go right in, do it quickly. It can go quickly. Clean bill of health, very good.
That would be you. There's no court case that states oil companies have special precedence and are able to have the government transfer private property into their hands. You're making up law on the spot, even though the argument against Kelo denies that public use can cover transferring private property into private hands.
All that said, Kelo isn't wrong, since it only followed more than a hundred years of practice and supreme court causes, such as Berman v. Parker, which gave cities the right to use eminent domain to transfer property into the hands of private developers, provided there is due compensation and public good.
And you know this
You are evidently entirely ignorant about the Kelo case, the opposition to the Kelo case and the history of eminent domain in the country.
LOL! Strong talk one way or the other here on this forum is such a waste. Do you think it actually changes anyone's opinion? The problem is, as I have explained elsewhere, the Constitution does not detail the precise model for determining "natural born," and historically there have been several. As an originalist, one can argue which of those models should be used, and everyone is entitled to an opinion.
But nobody's opinion here is binding legal authority. If you think Vattel is the way to go, get it written down, voted on, and added to the Constitution as an amendment. Otherwise, it makes no sense to harass good, fellow conservatives over whose non-binding opinion would win the day in a hypothetical SCOTUS ruling that in reality is less likely to occur than you or I winning the Powerball lottery.
Besides, if you really want to look at original intent, Ted Cruz isn't the guy the founders were worried about. They had specific cases in mind of foreign military leaders worming their way into leadership where they didn't belong. Ted's an American by birth, not by statute, and he's got the loyalty and single-minded devotion they were trying to encourage, so he meets their "original intent" with flying colors.
But here on FR it has become heresy to question Vattel, as if his opinion was holy writ. News flash, it is not. The founders wrote what they wrote. Like I said, if you think it should be more specific, bring it up at the Article 5 convention, if and when that happens. Meanwhile, less friendly fire would make FR and conservatism a somewhat healthier place to be.
Peace,
SR
Some private companies have always benefitted from government projects such as highways and railroads. Would you prefer that the Feds hire their own bureaucrats to build the pipeline instead of oil companies?
Now you're into the "eminent domain for private businesses is good and you support nationalizing oil companies" phase of your stupidity. FYI the railroads were privately owned. They were not "government projects."
It was rude and uncalled for. He didn't attack Trump, he slandered an entire region...like he was attempting to *play Texan* by talking bad about the Yankees.
As another poster said earlier, it was SO contrived. You could almost hear the words New York City? Get a rope!
Or, as an inquisitive originalist, one could just go find out what the Founders thought important -
Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, Monday, March 10, 1794, Volume 2, page 44
Ordered, That the Secretary purchase Blackstone's Commentaries, and Vattel's Law of Nature and Nations, for the use of the Senate.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsj&fileName=002/llsj002.db&recNum=42&itemLink=D?hlaw:13:./temp/~ammem_LF5V::%230020043&linkText=1
Thrifty fellas, those Founders. As far as I can tell, theses are the only two they felt important enough to spend public monies on.
And their definitions of natural born are the same.
Re: post 62. We also have Trump yelling “don’t pay the b.....d for this lousy microphone”! And the crowd goes wild. The same day we get the terrible news that Cruz took out a loan AND PAID IT BACK!
I did not say, like Donald, that eminent domain for private businesses is good! Nor do I favor nationalizing Big Oil. LOL
Of course, railroads were private projects, but they needed approval from governments and courts to run their rails through private lands, didn’t they? No, I should not have called them “government projects”.
I’ve got a lifetime supply by having you around, cowpie.
Those nuts and bolts are nothing but kayfabe.
Those aren’t really definitions, if you look closer. They are indicators.
I've showed you mine, now show me yours.
Dunno either... a professional urinalist published in the WSJ and Austin American and Politico? Sounds like a buyer beware scene irrespective of your Trump / Cruz leanings.
It all bores down to one word, trust. Now do I trust a constitutional lawyer from Texas that believes and does what he says or a common street hustler from New York that will say and do anything?
Sorry, but if that offends you New Yawkers that is tough $hit.
At least you were posting before campaign announcements, so may I please point to Reagan’s 11th, and just shake my head. This is devolving into fragging, and has moved way beyond friendly fire incidents.
Shame on you biff. Shame on your side in this. A growling bunch of attack dogs who have no respect for what Reagan implored us to do. Shame.
Respect is a two way street.
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.