Cruz wins Iowa

[RETIREDFAN1]

2 hours ago, PN-G bamatex said:

Can you explain precisely what you mean by that?

I already have on several occasions on different threads.......Congress organizes all federal courts lower than the Supreme court....with a simple majority, they could disband any federal they wanted to.....or all of them for that matter.....and they set the number of Supreme Court justices and where they can meet......they could, with a simple majority vote, disband all federal courts except the Supreme  Court....and with a simple majority vote set membership on SCOTUS at 1...and with a simple majority vote, make that 1 SCOTUS justice meet in a broom closet.....all with a simple majority vote....they don't have the  balls to exercise the power that The Constitution enumerates for them.....

[RETIREDFAN1]

Article 3.

Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court,
and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and
establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold
their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for
their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their
Continuance in Office.

 

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and
those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original
Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall
have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and
under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

[PN-G bamatex]

8 hours ago, Colmesneilfan1 said:

I already have on several occasions on different threads.......Congress organizes all federal courts lower than the Supreme court....with a simple majority, they could disband any federal they wanted to.....or all of them for that matter.....and they set the number of Supreme Court justices and where they can meet......they could, with a simple majority vote, disband all federal courts except the Supreme  Court....and with a simple majority vote set membership on SCOTUS at 1...and with a simple majority vote, make that 1 SCOTUS justice meet in a broom closet.....all with a simple majority vote....they don't have the  balls to exercise the power that The Constitution enumerates for them.....

You'll have to forgive me for not seeing your other "explanations" in other threads. I so rarely get the time to post any more that I don't pay as much attention to the board as I used to. Thus, I haven't seen any of them.

In any case, I have to hand it to you. I have seen some crazy posts on this site over the years, and in particular in this section of the site. Yours absolutely takes the cake.

Let's start with the number of justices. You say that Congress has the power to limit the number of justices with a simple majority vote. You could not be more incorrect. The only manner in which Congress could vote to do anything with regard to the number of justices on the bench is by voting not to confirm an appointment of the President to the high court, in which case only the Senate has a say (see Article II, Section 2), or by voting to impeach and remove a justice from the court, in which case the House would first be required to vote to impeach and the Senate would then be required to try and convict a justice of something before removal could take place (see Article I, Sections 2 & 3). There is no part of Article I, which delineates the powers of Congress, that by any stretch of the imagination gives Congress the power to unilaterally and arbitrarily reduce the number of justices on the Supreme Court with a simple majority of votes in either or both houses. The most Congress could constitutionally do is set a statutory limit on the number of justices that can sit on the high court, but if that statute limited the number to anything less than the nine justices who are on the court right now, it would be an unenforceable statute until the number of justices naturally came down to meet the limit due to retirements, deaths or impeachments and removals, the last of which has never happened in our entire history. So, to put it simply, your proposal to reduce the number of SCOTUS justices is not only radical and arguably absurd, it's patently unconstitutional.

Now that we've established that Congress does not have the power to reduce the number of SCOTUS justices at will, let's discuss your plan to get rid of all of the lower federal courts. To put it simply, that would be an absolute, unmitigated disaster. There are two angles I can take with this: the policy angle, and the constitutionality angle. I'll start with the policy angle.

There are certain areas of law in which the states have little to no say. Some of those areas of law have been completely usurped by the federal government by statute. I'll assume for the sake of argument that if we're getting rid of all the lower federal courts like you want us to, we're returning those subjects to the states. That said, most areas of law where the federal government has original jurisdiction were not usurped from the states by statute, they were delegated to the federal government by the Constitution itself. Examples include bankruptcy, immigration and naturalization (see Article I, Section 8), and cases involving any state and citizens of another state, citizens of different states, any two states, US citizens and foreign nationals, the maritime industry, the federal government or any agent thereof as a party to the case, treaties, foreign governments and international law (see Article III, Section 2). Tens of thousands of such cases are filed in federal district courts every single year; last year alone, more than 270,000 civil cases - just civil - were filed in federal district courts. If you have your druthers, a single court would be responsible for adjudicating every last one of those cases. That would bring the entire federal judiciary to a screeching halt, which would in turn have massively detrimental economic and political effects. You might as well tell the American people justice is dead at that point.

Furthermore, if you could shut down all the lower courts and the Supreme Court could somehow find a way to handle all those cases, all of American justice would be in the hands of nine people as opposed to the 874 federal judicial appointees we have today. Not only does that reduce the thoroughness with which justice would be doled out, it severely curtails the ability of the courts to assess the ramifications of how the law is applied and make adjustments as necessary, and concentrates an immense amount of power - quite literally all of the power to determine what the law means - in the hands of just nine people. If, on top of that, Congress were to reduce the number of SCOTUS justices to one as you desire through attrition or some means that's actually constitutional, that power to interpret all of the American body of law would be even more focally concentrated in the hands of just one man, who would be entitled to serve until retirement, conviction for a crime or death. That, in my opinion, would be as close as you could possibly get to a having a monarch under the United States Constitution.

That brings me to the argument over the constitutionality of what you're proposing. The Constitution mandates that the Supreme Court have original jurisdiction over only two of the areas of law constitutionally reserved to the federal judiciary; over all the others, the Supreme Court is required to have only appellate jurisdiction, which means that the Court can't hear or decide the case first, it can only review the findings of a lower court (see Article III, Section 2). So, in effect, the Constitution mandates that Congress set up some system of lower courts to hear these cases, because it prohibits state courts from hearing them, and prohibits the Supreme Court from being the first to hear them, effectively rendering your proposal unconstitutional on its face.

Now, with all of that said, I have to get back to reading my constitutional law textbook because, ironically enough, I have my constitutional law class in the morning.

[PAMFAM10]

why even try to debate PNG bamatex 

[Hagar]

14 hours ago, Colmesneilfan1 said:

 

 

[Hagar]

1 hour ago, PAMFAM10 said:

why even try to debate PNG bamatex 

I'm with you on that PF10.  Reading his post makes me wish I'd gotten my Jr Hi diploma  

[RETIREDFAN1]

7 hours ago, REBgp said:

I'm with you on that PF10.  Reading his post makes me wish I'd gotten my Jr Hi diploma  

He's full of hot air......he never touched on the actual QUOTES I posted from the Constitution which show much of his long winded rant to be incorrect.......I imagine you know as much about The Constitution as he does, you just choose not to be a blowhard about it.......anyone can come on and CLAIM to be attending "constitutional law classes"......I'll break his bloated arrogance down later this morning with actual QUOTES from the Constitution, not just reference to the article and section.......:)

[RETIREDFAN1]

19 hours ago, PN-G bamatex said:

Let's start with the number of justices. You say that Congress has the power to limit the number of justices with a simple majority vote. You could not be more incorrect. The only manner in which Congress could vote to do anything with regard to the number of justices on the bench is by voting not to confirm an appointment of the President to the high court, in which case only the Senate has a say (see Article II, Section 2), or by voting to impeach and remove a justice from the court, in which case the House would first be required to vote to impeach and the Senate would then be required to try and convict a justice of something before removal could take place (see Article I, Sections 2 & 3). There is no part of Article I, which delineates the powers of Congress, that by any stretch of the imagination gives Congress the power to unilaterally and arbitrarily reduce the number of justices on the Supreme Court with a simple majority of votes in either or both houses. The most Congress could constitutionally do is set a statutory limit on the number of justices that can sit on the high court, but if that statute limited the number to anything less than the nine justices who are on the court right now, it would be an unenforceable statute until the number of justices naturally came down to meet the limit due to retirements, deaths or impeachments and removals, the last of which has never happened in our entire history. So, to put it simply, your proposal to reduce the number of SCOTUS justices is not only radical and arguably absurd, it's patently unconstitutional.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations
made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and
Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

 

It would be awful hard for those Justices to remain on the court who Congress, BY A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE, decided to no longer pay........

[RETIREDFAN1]

"Now that we've established that Congress does not have the power to reduce the number of SCOTUS justices at will, let's discuss your plan to get rid of all of the lower federal courts."

 

 

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

I said that congress COULD get rid of them all should they decide to exercise their power, not that they WOULD.....My statement is in complete agreement with The Constitution......

[RETIREDFAN1]

"Furthermore, if you could shut down all the lower courts and the Supreme Court could somehow find a way to handle all those cases, all of American justice would be in the hands of nine people as opposed to the 874 federal judicial appointees we have today. Not only does that reduce the thoroughness with which justice would be doled out, it severely curtails the ability of the courts to assess the ramifications of how the law is applied and make adjustments as necessary, and concentrates an immense amount of power - quite literally all of the power to determine what the law means - in the hands of just nine people. If, on top of that, Congress were to reduce the number of SCOTUS justices to one as you desire through attrition or some means that's actually constitutional, that power to interpret all of the American body of law would be even more focally concentrated in the hands of just one man, who would be entitled to serve until retirement, conviction for a crime or death. That, in my opinion, would be as close as you could possibly get to a having a monarch under the United States Constitution."

 

That's one of those CHECKS and BALANCES that you should be aware of IF you really do teach Constitutional Law OR are a student of such....Congress COULD reign in a judicial system which has usurped it's Constitutionally enumerated powers by simply shutting them down.........However, I'm reminded that obama was also a "Constitutional Law" professor, and we all see clearly how he doesn't understand the first thing about that document......

[RETIREDFAN1]

" So, in effect, the Constitution mandates that Congress set up some system of lower courts to hear these cases, "

 

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court,
and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and
establish

 

 

[RETIREDFAN1]

"Now, with all of that said, I have to get back to reading my constitutional law textbook because, ironically enough, I have my constitutional law class in the morning."

 

Again, obama was a constitutional law scholar and professor, too......

[LumRaiderFan]

3 hours ago, Colmesneilfan1 said:

"Now, with all of that said, I have to get back to reading my constitutional law textbook because, ironically enough, I have my constitutional law class in the morning."

 

Again, obama was a constitutional law scholar and professor, too......

lol...this is true.

[PN-G bamatex]

I can see you didn't look up the text of the sections of the Constitution I cited. I apologize for assuming you had the wherewithal to research the portions of the Constitution I cited for yourself. I suppose we'll have to do this the old fashioned way.

5 hours ago, Colmesneilfan1 said:

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations
made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and
Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

 

It would be awful hard for those Justices to remain on the court who Congress, BY A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE, decided to no longer pay........

Constitutionally, Congress does not have the right to withhold pay from a Supreme Court justice or any federal judicial appointee. Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution states, in no uncertain terms, that "[t]he Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts... shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office." So, no, Congress cannot, by simple majority vote, choose not to pay the justices. In whatever appropriation Congress makes, it is required by the text quoted above to ensure that each of the justices receives pay commensurate with or in excess of the salary appropriated to them in previous budgetary acts. If Congress wished to reduce the justices' pay, it would require a constitutional amendment altering that clause in some way, which would require Congress to propose such an amendment with a two-thirds vote of both houses, and would then require the approval of three quarters of the states, per Article V.

5 hours ago, Colmesneilfan1 said:

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

I said that congress COULD get rid of them all should they decide to exercise their power, not that they WOULD.....My statement is in complete agreement with The Constitution......

That's correct. You said that Congress could "get rid" of SCOTUS justices, specifically that Congress could "with a simple majority vote [to] set membership on SCOTUS at 1." And I showed how such a move would not be, as you put it, "in complete agreement with The [sic] Constitution," citing all of the relevant language thereof. Since you failed to look that language up for yourself, I will make the text plain here.

Article I, Section II of the Constitution states unequivocally that the House "shall have the sole Power of Impeachement," and is complemented by Article I, Section III, which gives the Senate "the sole Power to try all Impeachments," requires "the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present" to reach a conviction, and limits "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment" to a select few sentences, of which "removal from Office" is expressly listed. The power to remove any federal appointee from office, much less a Supreme Court justice, is not enumerated anywhere else in the Constitution, and is not authorized by the Constitution under any other circumstances. Therefore, your contention that Congress could "with a simple majority vote [to] set membership on SCOTUS at 1" is flatly unconstitutional unless, as I pointed out in my original post, Congress voted to create a statutory limit on the number of justices on the high court, which would be unenforceable if Congress were to enact it today because of the constitutional provisions herein outlined and would not become enforceable until the number of justices was naturally reduced to that number by deaths, retirements, impeachments and removals (which have never happened) and, presumably, presidential appointments to the bench that went unconfirmed by the Senate - a process that would almost certainly take decades and that would likely prove unsustainable given the volatile nature of Congress.

5 hours ago, Colmesneilfan1 said:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish

As your various statements apply to the lower judges, I explained how that would not only be a horrific idea in terms of policy implications, I also argued that it would be unconstitutional. Once again, seeing how you've failed to look up the relevant provisions of the Constitution which I cited in my post, I'll proceed to use the explicit language of the Constitution.

You argue that the one provision of the Constitution you cite on this matter gives Congress discretion to establish lower courts altogether. I tell you that this provision is perhaps better characterized as giving Congress discretion not to set up lower courts, but rather in how to set up those lower courts. To reiterate what I stated in my previous post while paraphrasing Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, "[t]he judicial Power [of the federal judiciary] shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects." This has always been interpreted to mean that these ten types of cases may only be heard in federal courts; the state courts have no power to hear them at all (except for under very limited exceptions in a very limited set of circumstances under one of these categories, for the record).

Article III, Section 2 goes on to say that in "all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party," - in other words, only two of the those ten types of cases - "the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction," and that in "all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction." This means that in regard to the other eight types of cases mentioned in Article III, Section 2, the state courts are expressly barred from taking action, and the Supreme Court may not be the first forum in which they are litigated, effectively requiring that these cases be litigated in a lower federal court. These provisions, taken in tandem, effectively mandate that Congress set up some system of lower federal courts, and effectively limit Congress's discretion under "Inferior Courts" clause of Article I, Section 8 which you earlier quoted to how lower courts are set up under the Supreme Court and how many of those courts are established, foregoing the question of whether they are constituted or not altogether.

This is basic textualism. Antonin Scalia would agree with this.

5 hours ago, Colmesneilfan1 said:

That's one of those CHECKS and BALANCES that you should be aware of IF you really do teach Constitutional Law OR are a student of such....Congress COULD reign in a judicial system which has usurped it's Constitutionally enumerated powers by simply shutting them down.........However, I'm reminded that obama was also a "Constitutional Law" professor, and we all see clearly how he doesn't understand the first thing about that document......

I am so glad you brought up President Obama's legal education. More on that later.

In the meantime, checks and balances would hardly be effective against a single Supreme Court justice in whom, under your hypothetical scenario, all of the judicial power of the federal government would be vested. The job of the judiciary is to interpret the laws which Congress writes and the president executes. A well versed judge - indeed, any well versed lawyer - is very, very good at playing with legal interpretation. It doesn't matter how Congress writes its laws, or how the president intends to execute them; their powers of interpretation are wholly subservient to those of the judicial branch, which is charged with that duty by its mission and its very nature. When a law is interpreted a particular way by the highest court, Congress can do little to alter it besides either repealing the law or wholly redrafting it in some way.

The potential for abuse of that power is normally curtailed by the presence of multiple justices on the Supreme Court, who naturally hold each other accountable since no individual justice can set court dogma unilaterally and the weight of an opinion is dictated by the number of justices which join in it. That said, in your hypothetical, there aren't multiple justices on the Supreme Court. Indeed, there aren't even multiple appointees in the entire federal judiciary. If your plan was somehow implemented, there would be nobody within the judicial branch capable of holding the single Supreme Court justice accountable by any means. Furthermore, we've established that this justice can't be arbitrarily removed (i.e., removed for carrying out his duty to interpret the laws, even if done poorly or selfishly) or have his pay docked, and that the only checks the president and Congress really have over the judiciary under the Constitution are  limited entirely to their respective powers of appointment, confirmation, impeachment, and trial and removal through the impeachment process. This is why I say that having the full power of the judiciary manifest itself in a sole Supreme Court justice would be the closest thing to a monarchy you could possibly have in the United States.

5 hours ago, Colmesneilfan1 said:

Again, obama was a constitutional law scholar and professor, too......

You are correct. Barack Obama was a constitutional law professor. And as a constitutional law professor, Barack Obama knows both the canons and the history of constitutional interpretation very, very well. That is why he knows, just as well as I do and hopefully (though I doubt) just as well as you do, that the history of constitutional interpretation on the Supreme Court has been, overwhelmingly, a history of the construction of the Constitution to justify, not to strike down, federal laws and executive actions. Nine times out of ten, when reviewing a federal act of some kind, SCOTUS upholds it, and Barack Obama knows that. That is why he is expertly pushing the boundaries of what's constitutional in American jurisprudence; he knows that if he throws out executive order after executive order that falls right in the middle of the gray area between explicitly constitutional and explicitly unconstitutional, he's going to win more court battles than he loses, and expand the powers of the presidency more often than not. Luckily, we have a much more conservative court now than in years past, and he hasn't been as successful as previous presidents in doing this (one of the reasons, on a philosophical aside, that I favor a strong court over a weak one as you apparently desire). But, it's unforeseeable how long that luck will hold, which makes it all the more important that a Republican win the White House in 2016.

Since my academic status has apparently been brought into question, I suppose I'll reiterate here what most longtime users on this board already know. I am currently a law student at The University of Texas School of Law. This semester, I'm taking a constitutional law class under Professor Sanford Levinson, one of the nation's most widely renowned constitutional scholars, who received his Juris Doctor at Stanford and his Ph.D. in Government at Harvard. He's previously taught at Yale, the nation's most prestigious law school, and authored a number of books on constitutional law. This is my third constitutional law class; my two previous constitutional law classes were taught by one of Levinson's former students, who received his Ph.D. in Government Affairs at UT.

[RETIREDFAN1]

 

 

You managed to LEAVE OUT the following clause:

with such Exceptions, and
under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

 

here is the ENTIRE context of Article II, Section 2, unedited except for points of emphasis.....It doesn't say the same thing you edited it to say in order to back up your very wrong position....

 

Section 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under
this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which
shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other
public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime
Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to
Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of
another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the
same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a
State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and
those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original
Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall
have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and
under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and
such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been
committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such
Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

 

I don't see any express statement forbidding state courts to  hear the cases you mentioned, nor do I see anything that can even imply that state courts are forbidden to hearing those cases......

[RETIREDFAN1]

21 minutes ago, PN-G bamatex said:

 

Since my academic status has apparently been brought into question, I suppose I'll reiterate here what most longtime users on this board already know. I am currently a law student at The University of Texas School of Law. This semester, I'm taking a constitutional law class under Professor Sanford Levinson, one of the nation's most widely renowned constitutional scholars, who received his Juris Doctor at Stanford and his Ph.D. in Government at Harvard. He's previously taught at Yale, the nation's most prestigious law school, and authored a number of books on constitutional law. This is my third constitutional law class; my two previous constitutional law classes were taught by one of Levinson's former students, who received his Ph.D. in Government Affairs at UT.

It's STILL in question........I don't see any evidence backing up your claims.....you may be a burger flipper at Dairy Queen for all anyone on here knows......

[PN-G bamatex]

 

1 hour ago, Colmesneilfan1 said:

You managed to LEAVE OUT the following clause:

with such Exceptions, and
under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

 

here is the ENTIRE context of Article II, Section 2, unedited except for points of emphasis.....It doesn't say the same thing you edited it to say in order to back up your very wrong position....

 

Section 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under
this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which
shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other
public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime
Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to
Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of
another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the
same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a
State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and
those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original
Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall
have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and
under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and
such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been
committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such
Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

 

I don't see any express statement forbidding state courts to  hear the cases you mentioned, nor do I see anything that can even imply that state courts are forbidden to hearing those cases......

You're right. I didn't include the clause about exceptions. Because it's not relevant.

In your hypothetical, Congress isn't exercising its power to create exceptions to the constitutional requirement that the Supreme Court have only appellate jurisdiction over the specified types of cases, it's effectively ignoring that constitutional rule. If your proposal were approved under that exceptions clause, it would expand the definition of an exception to the extent that exceptions could, from that point on, altogether dispense with the rules they apply to. The purpose of an exception is to allow for limited deviations from a general rule in specific circumstances as deemed necessary by the body empowered to make those exceptions, not to undermine or simply do away with the rule altogether.

Imagine if we used such a broad approach with the other part of that clause, which has to do with regulations. If Congress can regulate the high court's proceedings with respect to those types of cases, can it extend the meaning of regulation to the extent that it bans the high court from hearing those kinds of cases? Would that not undermine - indeed, altogether implicitly abrogate - the constitutional requirement that the Supreme Court have appellate jurisdiction over those types of cases? Such a proposition would be absurd. So too is the case with its "exception" counterpart. The application of Congress's power to regulate in this context is, in principle, no different than the application of the power to create exceptions you advocate for in that post.

On an aside, I'm glad to see you finally went and looked up the text I cited to. I applaud the improvement.

1 hour ago, Colmesneilfan1 said:

It's STILL in question........I don't see any evidence backing up your claims.....you may be a burger flipper at Dairy Queen for all anyone on here knows......

Is this for real?

It's hard to say that nobody else on this site knows for a fact that I am who I say I am given that I've been posting here since I was a sophomore in high school, not to mention that I'm a site moderator, that I've met some of the users on this site in person, and that I'm related to two of them, one of whom also happens to be a moderator.

[RETIREDFAN1]

15 hours ago, PN-G bamatex said:

 

 

On an aside, I'm glad to see you finally went and looked up the text I cited to. I applaud the improvement.

 

I didn't have to look them up for any reason other than to post them.....IF your biographical information is correct, I've been studying The Constitution since before you were a twinkle in your parent's eyes....:P

 

We seem to have different interpretations of it.....yours, based on the opinions of lawyers and courts......  mine based on the Founders own words in The Federalist and the Anti-Federalist papers, which are linked below for anyone interested in learning the Founders perspective......

 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[Hagar]

Food for thought;

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[Mr.Green Jeans]

Again this will hurt Cruz in the end.

[Hagar]

30 minutes ago, Mr.Green Jeans said:

Again this will hurt Cruz in the end.

Interesting.  I'm curious why you say that.  Hurt him because he's been compared to, IMO, the best President in my (long) lifetime, or he's branded a conservative (which now fits anyone who's not a Socialist), or that he's a Constitutionalist, or that Rush said it?  

Cruz is currently my choice, but I still have an open mind.  

[tvc184]

 I don't see it hurting Cruz at all.   By it being  Rush Limbaugh or a comparison to Ronald Reagan  might help with some and will not matter at all to anyone else.  I find it very unlikely that anyone that will vote against someone because Rush Limbaugh likes them, will not likely be voting for a Republican anyway.  Anyone that will not like a candidate because that person is compared to Ronald Reagan, will not likely be voting Republican anyway. 

 On the other hand Rush Limbaugh has the largest radio following in the country. Some people listen purely for entertainment value however some listen and take what he says as gospel. If Limbaugh endorses someone then there are certain people that will use that as marching orders to vote for that person. 

 I believe there is a slight possibility that it could help and almost no possibility that it will hurt. 

[Hagar]

Here's my 2 cents worth so far.  

RINO's (Republican In Name Only) Trump - is a darling of the media. Media reports all his tweets so it's free campaigning.  

Christie - knew he wasn't electable and took Rubio down (according to the media) in the debate before dropping out, having done his job.  

Conservative Candidates (Media/Dems don't want).              Cruz and Rubio

After years of watching politics, I'm convinced that if you're conservative, all you have do is watch the Mainstream Media.