|
Post by buckybasser on Mar 22, 2015 9:39:00 GMT -5
At least for the primary season, we will have a moderate GOP voice concerning the proper constitutional role of the federal government on the debate stage.
www.nytimes.com/2015/03/23/us/politics/ted-cruz-to-announce-on-monday-he-plans-to-run-for-president.html?_r=0
Although I am encouraged that Cruz wants to eliminate the IRS & Department of Education, those goals are much too low if we aim to save the republic.
For starters, Cruz should add these letters to his elimination list: DOA, DOE, DOI, DOL and EPA.
But I'll take what I can get until a viable constitutional conservative party is an option.
>O
|
|
|
Post by muddydove on Mar 22, 2015 13:40:18 GMT -5
At least for the primary season, we will have a moderate GOP voice concerning the proper constitutional role of the federal government on the debate stage.
www.nytimes.com/2015/03/23/us/politics/ted-cruz-to-announce-on-monday-he-plans-to-run-for-president.html?_r=0
Although I am encouraged that Cruz wants to eliminate the IRS & Department of Education, those goals are much too low if we aim to save the republic.
For starters, Cruz should add these letters to his elimination list: DOA, DOE, DOI, DOL and EPA.
But I'll take what I can get until a viable constitutional conservative party is an option.
>O Cruz a moderate? LMAO! What planet are you from?
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Mar 22, 2015 16:14:00 GMT -5
For starters, Cruz should add these letters to his elimination list: DOA
Dead on arrival???
Cruz isn't likely to be the next President. Starting his campaign at Liberty University seems a bit weird; Jerry Falwell's already dead, and LU now is known primarily for basketball. In any case, if he thinks that's going to help with the Religious Right vote he's probably wrong, given that Huckabee and Santorium also seem poised to enter the race. BTW, Cruz is starting from an extremely low base of support, barely above 0 percent (link):
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Mar 23, 2015 0:36:09 GMT -5
"Hours ahead of an expected Monday morning announcement at Liberty University, Ted Cruz told supporters just after midnight that he was launching a White House bid. “I'm running for president, and I hope to earn your support!” he tweeted. link
Premature annunciation.
|
|
|
Post by muddydove on Mar 23, 2015 0:40:49 GMT -5
"Hours ahead of an expected Monday morning announcement at Liberty University, Ted Cruz told supporters just after midnight that he was launching a White House bid. “I'm running for president, and I hope to earn your support!” he tweeted. link
Premature annunciation.
Well, that may be preferable to going bald real young: premature Kojakulation.
|
|
|
Post by buckybasser on Mar 23, 2015 6:53:18 GMT -5
As OB will recall, it has generally been my message board role to sidetrack threads with silliness (most often my Global Warming cartoon monsters) so this is refreshing!
Let me try to bring the thread back to reasonable land.
Admittedly Cruz has very little chance of securing the GOP nomination, but not because of premature announcements or his awful 'Gene Keady' style rug rapidly spinning towards Kojak land...
The reason is much more simple. The GOP has become a radical leftist party. The most likely ultra-liberal dynasty nominee supports common core & illegal immigration (because of love).
This is simply not acceptable to the few of us left in the GOP that value the very limited role of the federal government set forth in the constitution.
Cruz is acceptable, but is still much too moderate for the dramatic reversal I feel is needed to maintain a free republic.
>O
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Mar 23, 2015 16:22:30 GMT -5
Cruz is acceptable, but is still much too moderate for the dramatic reversal I feel is needed to maintain a free republic.
Come on Basser: we need specifics here. Where do you disagree with Cruz? What do you "feel is needed to maintain a free republic"? Details matter!
|
|
|
Post by buckybasser on Mar 23, 2015 19:12:17 GMT -5
First off OB, my 'silliness' comment was simply a paving brick for when I finally figure out how to post my super cool cartoon animals - no harm intended!
But on Cruz & specifics it is very simple. Cruz will not say what must be said because he is too moderate and his desire to win exceeds his moral compass...
You already know this answer OB... (I think you just wanted me to say it.)
The weeds of socialism in our republic must be pulled out at their roots. This means the elimination of the FDR & LBJ entitlement programs. Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid must be phased-out and ultimately eliminated.
You cannot have a truly free republic when you steal both liberty & property from some by the force of government in order to subsidize others...
It is simply not possible.
>O
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Mar 23, 2015 22:41:10 GMT -5
You cannot have a truly free republic when you steal both liberty & property from some by the force of government in order to subsidize others...
It is simply not possible.
I would argue precisely the contrary. Personally, I have benefitted directly at one time or another from every major federal social-welfare program, except food stamps and public housing, and that has made me much freer than I ever could have been without those supports. Just quickly off the top of my head:
*My parents were able to buy a house--and move my brother and me out of a tenement--thanks to a VA mortgage guarantee (VA never actually paid a dime).
*When my father died at an early age, my mother was able to keep us in that home thanks to Social Security survivors' benefits, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children (until she was able to go back to work).
*I was able to go to college thanks National Defense Education Act (NDEA) work-study jobs and loans, plus those SS survivors' benefits, which were extended just in time to keep me in school.
*I attended graduate school in part through an NDEA fellowship.
*After I returned from four years in the Air Force, with a wife and two pre-school kids in tow, not only did I continue to get NDEA support, but the IRS informed me that I was eligible for a refund through the Earned Income Tax Credit (a brainchild of Milton Friedman, btw)! It wasn't a lot of money, but it paid for groceries and diapers for a while.
*I now am able to live a decent semi-retirement as I'm about to enter my 70s because I have coverage through both Social Security and Medicare. Without them, frankly, I don't know what I'd do--they're the critical difference between living independently or not. Indeed, if it hadn't been for those programs, my own mother would have had to give up her independence, leave her home, and rely on me and/or my brother for everything because she certainly didn't make enough money in her lifetime to save up for a cushy retirement. As an uncle of mine said a few months before he died, "Thank god for FDR!"
So, was I less free because of these programs? On the contrary: without them I almost certainly would have spent my working life as a low-middle income worker in the Teflon factory where I used to work during college summers. Instead, I got to have a terrific career, and have paid back in taxes many times the modest investments in me from those social programs. And I'm delighted if those tax dollars I have been paying all these years have helped others to live a bit more independently, and perhaps to succeed themselves.
The fact is, social spending is in part an investment in social capital. Having a healthier, better-educated, better-housed, more financially secure population actually benefits American society as a whole. It means more spending for goods and services, providing incentives for investment and jobs for workers. It means avoiding the kinds of health problems that drain billions in productivity from the economy. It means greater stability for communities, as well as families and individuals. These positive social benefits more than justify the costs of social spending, unless you really want to return to the days when life expectancy was under 50 years, communicable diseases were left untreated and therefore spread widely, and illiteracy rates were high. I mean, if you really want a society where a few people live very well and everyone else lives in misery I can point you to a lot of countries that would be happy to take you in. :)
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Mar 28, 2015 16:35:06 GMT -5
Gail Collins has a pop quiz on Ted Cruz. See how well you know the first serious presidential candidate for 2016: link.
|
|
|
Post by bigapplebucky on Mar 29, 2015 17:41:15 GMT -5
Gail Collins has a pop quiz on Ted Cruz. See how well you know the first serious presidential candidate for 2016: link. 9 out of 9. Cruz is a pure joy for any Democrat who loves to laugh at Republicans.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Mar 30, 2015 11:13:54 GMT -5
Cruz is a pure joy for any Democrat who loves to laugh at Republicans.
Ironically, Cruz's speech at Liberty University, in which he talked about liberty, was before students who were required to attend ($10 fine for non-attendance)! It was their weekly mandatory assembly.
|
|
|
Post by muddydove on Mar 30, 2015 12:43:30 GMT -5
Cruz is a pure joy for any Democrat who loves to laugh at Republicans.
Ironically, Cruz's speech at Liberty University, in which he talked about liberty, was before students who were required to attend ($10 fine for non-attendance)! It was their weekly mandatory assembly.
I think a fair number of Cruz's crowd would like to require all Americans to attend a Christian church (well, not Catholic, mind you), but just once a week .......................... at first.
|
|
|
Post by buckybasser on Mar 30, 2015 16:48:22 GMT -5
Gail Collins has a pop quiz on Ted Cruz. See how well you know the first serious presidential candidate for 2016: link. 9 out of 9. Cruz is a pure joy for any Democrat who loves to laugh at Republicans.
Such a joy to see the Politburo Brothers back together in political threads!
The N.Y. Times & The Washington Post are already so prominent in this thread... We know there is no bias there!
My initial N.Y. Times cite was simply because I truly am the most considerate poster in Badger political board history... I do worry about becoming radicalized & indoctrinated by my nicety...
We just need someone to cover the L.A. Times every day and we could establish a radical triumvirate so strong it would historically be rivaled only by Pravda!
The truth of the matter is that Cruz is much too moderate to save the republic. He might weather the tide, but we must reverse course...
We would need 8 years of Cruz and then 8 years of someone much more conservative just to begin the process of returning to constitutional limitations...
Either that or an Article V convention of the states as Mr. Levin has suggested.
>O
Note: All kidding aside, cool that BAB would post in my Cruz thread despite my 'lifetime' banning where he usually hangs out. I have previously told OB the same. BB
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Apr 2, 2015 14:22:22 GMT -5
Every once in a while, George Will reverts from his usual screeds to remind us that he is a trained political scientist. Aside from his baseball columns, this is his best work. Today, Prof. Will (he taught at Michigan State) lectures Ted Cruz:
"Texas Sen. Ted Cruz was born in 1970, six years after events refuted a theory on which he is wagering his candidacy. The 1964 theory was that many millions of conservatives abstained from voting because the GOP did not nominate sufficiently deep-dyed conservatives. So if in 1964 the party would choose someone like Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater, hitherto dormant conservatives would join the electorate in numbers sufficient for victory. This theory was slain by a fact — actually, 15,951,378 facts. That was the difference between the 43,129,566 votes President Lyndon Johnson received and the 27,178,188 that Goldwater got on the way to winning six states." link
A mirror-image hypothesis was tested by Democrats in 1972, with much the same deflating result. Will concedes that, in the aftermath of the Kennedy assassination, Goldwater and other conservative leaders did not expect to win in 1964, but to lay the groundwork for a future, more conservative GOP, a hope they realized in 1980. Then he comes to the key point:
"Today, however, there is no need to nominate Cruz in order to make the GOP conservative. Cruz sits in a Senate that has no Republicans akin to the liberals Goldwater served with — New York’s Jacob Javits, Massachusetts’s Edward Brooke, Illinois’s Charles Percy, New Jersey’s Clifford Case, California’s Thomas Kuchel. When Jeb Bush, the most conservative governor of a large state since Ronald Reagan (by some metrics — taxes, school choice — Bush was a more conservative governor than Reagan), is called a threat to conservatism, Republicans are with Alice in Wonderland."
Yes, exactly. And Cruz is the Mad Hatter.
|
|
|
Post by buckybasser on Apr 3, 2015 8:46:11 GMT -5
We have been battling the second American revolution since the 1930s. Not a battle in the sense of bloodshed, but instead a war on our founding principles launched by FDR and essentially continued by every single member of the executive, legislative and judicial branch since that time...
There have been some who have tried to set road blocks on the path towards tyranny. Reagan spoke eloquently about the evils of government, but in reality did very little to stem the tide. Goldwater might have been committed to saving the republic, but we will never know if he was the plug needed to secure our sinking vessel of liberty.
There are also those like LBJ, RMN and BHO who have rapidly increased our pace towards totalitarianism. These are men who appear to have a vision of the nation wholly unhinged from that of our founding documents.
Perhaps the most destructive of all Constitutional termites are those who profess to support founding principles, but instead are simply comfortable with a softer form of tyranny. It is no longer sufficient to trot out some Statist columnist as a badge or measuring stick for what is to be labeled as 'conservatism'.
The cold and simple truth is that pundits and commentators like Will, Krauthammer, Hume, Gerson, Kristol, Brooks, etc. are part of the problem. These people claim to seek more effective and streamlined government rather than a devotion to the Constitution.
These are not conservatives, they are men of the left who simply camouflage themselves well by the use of language.
Cruz is lost somewhere in the middle, but he might be our last and best hope...
>O
|
|
|
Post by muddydove on Apr 3, 2015 10:46:01 GMT -5
Good lord. You think Will, Krauthammer, Hume, Gerson, Kristol and Brooks are all lefties? You live in your own little world. About 1 out of 100 Americans, tops, agree with your view of the world. We have been battling the second American revolution since the 1930s. Not a battle in the sense of bloodshed, but instead a war on our founding principles launched by FDR and essentially continued by every single member of the executive, legislative and judicial branch since that time...
There have been some who have tried to set road blocks on the path towards tyranny. Reagan spoke eloquently about the evils of government, but in reality did very little to stem the tide. Goldwater might have been committed to saving the republic, but we will never know if he was the plug needed to secure our sinking vessel of liberty.
There are also those like LBJ, RMN and BHO who have rapidly increased our pace towards totalitarianism. These are men who appear to have a vision of the nation wholly unhinged from that of our founding documents.
Perhaps the most destructive of all Constitutional termites are those who profess to support founding principles, but instead are simply comfortable with a softer form of tyranny. It is no longer sufficient to trot out some Statist columnist as a badge or measuring stick for what is to be labeled as 'conservatism'.
The cold and simple truth is that pundits and commentators like Will, Krauthammer, Hume, Gerson, Kristol, Brooks, etc. are part of the problem. These people claim to seek more effective and streamlined government rather than a devotion to the Constitution.
These are not conservatives, they are men of the left who simply camouflage themselves well by the use of language.
Cruz is lost somewhere in the middle, but he might be our last and best hope...
>O
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Apr 3, 2015 15:16:37 GMT -5
Perhaps the most destructive of all Constitutional termites are those who profess to support founding principles, but instead are simply comfortable with a softer form of tyranny. It is no longer sufficient to trot out some Statist columnist as a badge or measuring stick for what is to be labeled as 'conservatism'.
LOL! You are a card. You know who threatens conservatism? Radical rightists who live in a fantasy world in which there is, essentially, no government at all. They should spend time in Yemen, or perhaps simply read John Locke.
|
|
|
Post by muddydove on Apr 3, 2015 15:31:25 GMT -5
Perhaps the most destructive of all Constitutional termites are those who profess to support founding principles, but instead are simply comfortable with a softer form of tyranny. It is no longer sufficient to trot out some Statist columnist as a badge or measuring stick for what is to be labeled as 'conservatism'.
LOL! You are a card. You know who threatens conservatism? Radical rightists who live in a fantasy world in which there is, essentially, no government at all. They should spend time in Yemen, or perhaps simply read John Locke.
That's exactly what a statist would say.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Apr 3, 2015 15:50:39 GMT -5
That's exactly what a statist would say.
So true, but you know...
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on May 28, 2015 9:07:17 GMT -5
"As he prepared for his presidential run over the last year or so, a hawkish Sen. Ted Cruz has said U.S. policy in the Middle East and elsewhere is a mess because of President Obama’s weakness — particularly his failure to enforce his own “red line” after the Syrian regime used chemical weapons...“Obama draws a red line and ignores the red line.” This takes quite a lot of chutzpah, even by Cruz standards. It’s true that Obama didn’t enforce his red line in Syria — in large part because Cruz rallied opposition to bombing Syria." link
Remember 2013? Republicans, having just added control of the Senate to that of the House, were insisting that Obama come to them before undertaking major foreign initiatives. And what did they do when he did?
"Back in 2013, when Obama was seeking congressional approval for Syria airstrikes, Cruz said his constituents were telling him not to “put us in the middle of a sectarian civil war, particularly when doing so would help al-Qaeda terrorists.” He belittled the significance of the chemical-weapons red line, saying, “It appears what the president is pressing for is essentially protecting his public relations.” Previously, Cruz had spoken out on the Senate floor against Obama’s plans to arm the Syrian rebels, saying, “It seems we are backing into an intractable crisis where there are no good actors but plenty of bad outcomes for America.”...
"But last year, Cruz became bellicose...In a December 2014 speech, Cruz shamelessly declared, “President Obama announced his now infamous red line in Syria and then did nothing.” That “gave the green light to aggressive or oppressive regimes across the globe that America is not to be feared.” This is exactly what [GOP Rep. (and Iraq/Afghanistan veteran0 Adam Kinzinger argued — back in 2013, when Cruz was arguing the other side...“I think Ted Cruz bears some responsibility for not enforcing the red line,” Kinzinger told me."
Thanks to Cruz, Senate GOP support for the bombing campaign in Syria collapsed (who wanted to have a primary opponent claim they were helping Obama and al-Qaeda?). Now it turns out he was for it even when he was against it.
Ted Cruz: charlatan.
|
|
|
Post by bigapplebucky on May 28, 2015 11:05:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bigapplebucky on Jun 8, 2015 6:41:30 GMT -5
Every once in a while, George Will reverts from his usual screeds to remind us that he is a trained political scientist. Aside from his baseball columns, this is his best work. Today, Prof. Will (he taught at Michigan State) lectures Ted Cruz:
"Texas Sen. Ted Cruz was born in 1970, six years after events refuted a theory on which he is wagering his candidacy. The 1964 theory was that many millions of conservatives abstained from voting because the GOP did not nominate sufficiently deep-dyed conservatives. So if in 1964 the party would choose someone like Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater, hitherto dormant conservatives would join the electorate in numbers sufficient for victory. This theory was slain by a fact — actually, 15,951,378 facts. That was the difference between the 43,129,566 votes President Lyndon Johnson received and the 27,178,188 that Goldwater got on the way to winning six states." link
A mirror-image hypothesis was tested by Democrats in 1972, with much the same deflating result. Will concedes that, in the aftermath of the Kennedy assassination, Goldwater and other conservative leaders did not expect to win in 1964, but to lay the groundwork for a future, more conservative GOP, a hope they realized in 1980. Then he comes to the key point:
"Today, however, there is no need to nominate Cruz in order to make the GOP conservative. Cruz sits in a Senate that has no Republicans akin to the liberals Goldwater served with — New York’s Jacob Javits, Massachusetts’s Edward Brooke, Illinois’s Charles Percy, New Jersey’s Clifford Case, California’s Thomas Kuchel. When Jeb Bush, the most conservative governor of a large state since Ronald Reagan (by some metrics — taxes, school choice — Bush was a more conservative governor than Reagan), is called a threat to conservatism, Republicans are with Alice in Wonderland."
Yes, exactly. And Cruz is the Mad Hatter.
I wonder if Will had an ax to grind. Turns out his wife works with the Scott Walker campaign.
|
|
|
Post by muddydove on Jun 8, 2015 14:40:54 GMT -5
Every once in a while, George Will reverts from his usual screeds to remind us that he is a trained political scientist. Aside from his baseball columns, this is his best work. Today, Prof. Will (he taught at Michigan State) lectures Ted Cruz:
"Texas Sen. Ted Cruz was born in 1970, six years after events refuted a theory on which he is wagering his candidacy. The 1964 theory was that many millions of conservatives abstained from voting because the GOP did not nominate sufficiently deep-dyed conservatives. So if in 1964 the party would choose someone like Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater, hitherto dormant conservatives would join the electorate in numbers sufficient for victory. This theory was slain by a fact — actually, 15,951,378 facts. That was the difference between the 43,129,566 votes President Lyndon Johnson received and the 27,178,188 that Goldwater got on the way to winning six states." link
A mirror-image hypothesis was tested by Democrats in 1972, with much the same deflating result. Will concedes that, in the aftermath of the Kennedy assassination, Goldwater and other conservative leaders did not expect to win in 1964, but to lay the groundwork for a future, more conservative GOP, a hope they realized in 1980. Then he comes to the key point:
"Today, however, there is no need to nominate Cruz in order to make the GOP conservative. Cruz sits in a Senate that has no Republicans akin to the liberals Goldwater served with — New York’s Jacob Javits, Massachusetts’s Edward Brooke, Illinois’s Charles Percy, New Jersey’s Clifford Case, California’s Thomas Kuchel. When Jeb Bush, the most conservative governor of a large state since Ronald Reagan (by some metrics — taxes, school choice — Bush was a more conservative governor than Reagan), is called a threat to conservatism, Republicans are with Alice in Wonderland."
Yes, exactly. And Cruz is the Mad Hatter.
I wonder if Will had an ax to grind. Turns out his wife works with the Scott Walker campaign. Do you realize that you completely missed Will's point? I'll explain it: he's saying that if run-of-the-mill Republican conservatives believe that Jeb Bush is a threat to conservatism, those people are stark raving batsh*t nuts.
|
|
|
Post by buckybasser on Jun 8, 2015 17:30:18 GMT -5
It is quite likely that 75% of the G.O.P. field will be a threat to conservatism. It is really quite simple. Do you believe that the plain language of the Constitution supports anything in the neighborhood of the federal monstrosity we have created? It does not. Most of the G.O.P. candidates are just fine with the size & scope of government. Does this make the Basser batsh*t crazy!? >O
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jun 9, 2015 0:55:07 GMT -5
Do you believe that the plain language of the Constitution supports anything in the neighborhood of the federal monstrosity we have created? It does not.
Can you be specific about what the Constitution does or does not support? By "specific" I mean at the level of: grants to states to build/maintain highways, Medicare, stationing Armed Forces overseas. In other words, not just vague generalities, but not at the level of everything the government does--just the major activities/programs.
|
|
|
Post by buckybasser on Jun 12, 2015 19:43:01 GMT -5
Your specific points and some plain language / common sense interpretation of Article I / Section 8...
Armed forces / military actions would almost always be constitutional because of the broad grant of federal powers. A declaration of war and reauthorizations might be necessary for full compliance.
Federal highways are more suspect, but perhaps they are 'post Roads' and/or directly linked to defense, supporting at least some federal involvement in a highway program.
Welfare programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. are wholly unconstitutional.
The general Welfare language of Article I (like the Commerce Clause) was bastardized by radical leftist presidents, legislators and judges to begin the downfall of a free nation... tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/08/13/is-social-security-constitutional/
States can enact elder care programs, disability programs, food stamp programs, environmental programs and a plethora of other nanny state / cradle-to-grave programs...
So could the federal government - through the amendment process in Article V.
>O
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jun 12, 2015 23:42:03 GMT -5
Your specific points and some plain language / common sense interpretation of Article I / Section 8...
Armed forces / military actions would almost always be constitutional because of the broad grant of federal powers. A declaration of war and reauthorizations might be necessary for full compliance.
Federal highways are more suspect, but perhaps they are 'post Roads' and/or directly linked to defense, supporting at least some federal involvement in a highway program.
Welfare programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. are wholly unconstitutional.
The general Welfare language of Article I (like the Commerce Clause) was bastardized by radical leftist presidents, legislators and judges to begin the downfall of a free nation...
Well, the power raise and maintain an army and navy, and to make war, clearly resides with the federal government, not the states, but you left out the power to conduct foreign relations more generally, as provided for in Article I, Section 10, and Article II, Section 2. The authority to build roads is explicit, as you yourself note, so I can't see a basis for saying it's "suspect". I assume you left out other explicit items listed in Section 8 inadvertently.
But your view of the rest simply is cramped and ahistorical. The key grant of authority in Section 8 is this: "The Congress shall have power to...provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." At the end of this section comes this broad grant of discretion: "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." I am highlighting one part of that sentence because the clear, plain-language meaning is that the list of powers granted to the government of the United States is not limited to those listed in Section 8. If the framers had so intended they would have left out the "all other powers" phrase as adding nothing to the grant of authority.
In the case of the Social Security Act, Justice Cardozo, writing for a 7-2 majority of the Supreme Court, addressed this issue directly in Helvering v. Davis (1936): "Congress may spend money in aid of the "general welfare". There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by [previous] decision. The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison..." link You may not agree with that interpretation, but it long has been settled law.
|
|
|
Post by buckybasser on Jun 13, 2015 5:39:33 GMT -5
The court in Helvering was wrong, and was likely influenced by the threats of a tyrannical president who despised the fact that the Constitution is a limiting document.
The court was corrupted by politics and our freedoms began to die.
Madison was correct in his views as set forth in the Federalist Papers and discussed below...
I am familiar with the concept of legal precedent OB - I have a couple of law degrees. I was going to link SSA as well (for a discussion of the court packing plan) but I figured you would link the history.
I fully acknowledge that my views were rejected by the court and that my concept of limited government has been loosing since the first Roosevelt...
But the debate between the views of Hamilton & Madison is not over.
>O
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jun 13, 2015 15:43:50 GMT -5
The court was corrupted by politics and our freedoms began to die.
I agree. Bush vs. Gore, Citizens' United, and Shelby Co. v. Holder were disgusting examples of a politicized Supreme Court making disastrously bad law that have undermined citizen's rights and their faith in our electoral system. That is what you meant to say, right?
|
|