Exclusive–Inside Ted Cruz’s Campaign HQ: How Texas Firebrand Plans to Win by Breaking All the Rules

[Oceander]

*  *  *

 No matter the end result, any Republican will be better than any Democrat. 

Amen!!

[Fishrrman]

Cruz:
[[ The greatest trick the left has ever played is to convince the world that America doesn’t share our values,” Cruz added. “America remains a fundamentally center-right country with Judeo-Christian values. And these are common sense principles that America was built upon, and just like in 1980 it took millions of men and women across this country to come together and become the Reagan Revolution. Likewise, today, it will take a similar army of courageous conservatives to result in the same sort of fundamental change we saw in 1980. Our nation is in crisis and the Washington elites cannot solve this problem. It can only come from the American people...]]

Pretty good, I think.
Pretty durn good!

But will it grab in the grassroots?

[Bigun]

Let's take one point, the 14th Amendment.  Given all of the debates and all the USSC opinions on the equal protection provision, what does the clause, "...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" mean to you?

It means people who are solely within it's jurisdiction and not those that are within the jurisdiction of others as well.

[Oceander]

It means people who are solely within it's jurisdiction and not those that are within the jurisdiction of others as well.

No it doesn't.  The jurisdiction of the federal government does not ipso facto oust the jurisdiction of the states.

[Bigun]

No it doesn't.  The jurisdiction of the federal government does not ipso facto oust the jurisdiction of the states.

Whatever you say counselor.

[Fishrrman]

Bigun wrote above:
[[ I personally think that there is a strong majority in this country who would support CONSTITUTIONAL government. ]]

The long-term problem here is that due to the efforts of the left (via "education"), there is an increasingly-smaller percentage of young Americans who have any idea of what "Constitutional government" is.

This is not going to get better in the years and decades to come.
Indeed, it will grow worse.

[Oceander]

Whatever you say counselor.

/snicker

[MACVSOG68]

It means people who are solely within it's jurisdiction and not those that are within the jurisdiction of others as well.

Hopefully you're not suggesting that a citizen with the jurisdiction of a state isn't also under the jurisdiction of the federal government?  My question though has to do with the meaning to you of the equal protection of the laws provision?

[truth_seeker]

That's right! But the Constitution is made up of plain English words and those words have very explicit meanings!

Okay, where is the definition of "religious liberty" to be found in the Constitution?

Why did Founders allow slavery? Was slavery once part of "religious liberty? 

What does the Constitution say about capital punishment?

What does the Constitution say about marriage? Abortion? Homosexuality?

About public schools? About criminalizing drug possession and use?

What does the Constitution say about citizenship requirements? About legal and illegal immigration?

[Oceander]

Hopefully you're not suggesting that a citizen with the jurisdiction of a state isn't also under the jurisdiction of the federal government?  My question though has to do with the meaning to you of the equal protection of the laws provision?

Good point.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Okay, where is the definition of "religious liberty" to be found in the Constitution?

Why did Founders allow slavery? Was slavery once part of "religious liberty? 

What does the Constitution say about capital punishment?

What does the Constitution say about marriage? Abortion? Homosexuality?

About public schools? About criminalizing drug possession and use?

What does the Constitution say about citizenship requirements? About legal and illegal immigration?

Oooooh....

Playing hardball.

The obvious being that whatever the Constitution is silent on, falls to the States or the people respectively.

But, but, butbutbutbutbut,,,,

Comes the doctrine of Incorporation, and all Constitutional guarantees, restrictions, powers and limitations  (nearly all) assigned to the Federal government by the Bill of Rights, now apply to the States equally. Couple that with the XIV Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, and the question of what powers fall where becomes very murky.

[truth_seeker]

Oooooh....

Playing hardball.

The obvious being that whatever the Constitution is silent on, falls to the States or the people respectively.

Hardball only in the sense of begging clarification for how the "Constitution" alone doesn't give the results those frequently citing it, perhaps wish it said.

Christianity is a big tent, and all parties therein do NOT agree on many things.

At the time of slavery, both sides invoked the Bible in support of their side's opposing positions. The abolitionists also invoked their interpretation of the intent of the Constitution. The pro-slavery side invoked "states' rights" to support their maltreatment of fellow human beings.

At this time, some invoke the Bible for their anti-gay rights side, since the Constitution is silent on the topic.

Since the Bible is NOT the law of the land, and the Constitution is, then we are left with our system of laws, through elected representatives and the courts, to settle difficult issues.

One solution would be to nationalize the bakeries (photographers, florists etc), and government could provide cakes for every purpose.

Bakers that refused to make gay cakes, could be sent first for reeducation, then to the Gulag.

The government cakes would be prohibitively expensive, and an underground system would come into being, to make affordable cakes, complete with "discrimination."

[Luis Gonzalez]

Hardball only in the sense of begging clarification for how the "Constitution" alone doesn't give the results those frequently citing it, perhaps wish it said.

Christianity is a big tent, and all parties therein do NOT agree on many things.

At the time of slavery, both sides invoked the Bible in support of their side's opposing positions. The abolitionists also invoked their interpretation of the intent of the Constitution. The pro-slavery side invoked "states' rights" to support their maltreatment of fellow human beings.

At this time, some invoke the Bible for their anti-gay rights side, since the Constitution is silent on the topic.

Since the Bible is NOT the law of the land, and the Constitution is, then we are left with our system of laws, through elected representatives and the courts, to settle difficult issues.

One solution would be to nationalize the bakeries (photographers, florists etc), and government could provide cakes for every purpose.

Bakers that refused to make gay cakes, could be sent first for reeducation, then to the Gulag.

The government cakes would be prohibitively expensive, and an underground system would come into being, to make affordable cakes, complete with "discrimination."

Mad world, petty people.

In a world where this can happen, one side is up in arms over baking cakes and calling it an attack on Christianity, while the other believes that you can force people to like you.

We all simply need to respect each other.

And that goes for both sides.

Live and let live, and remember that the kids in that picture are the REAL symbol of an attack on Christianity, and not all these First World problems that we want to tear each other up over,

[MACVSOG68]

Good summations t_s and Luis.   

[Right_in_Virginia]

I learned from 2014 that no matter how much power you give Republicans, they are powerless to fight Democrats.

Me too.  In 2016 they're going to have to earn my vote.  And I'll give them a heads-up:  No Jeb Bush.  Ever.