|
Post by beth on Apr 24, 2016 19:42:03 GMT -5
Very good, readable analysis, Men an tol. Thanks for the nice post. While you may not "support" Cruz, you do give him the best makes, along with Kasich. Since Kasich can't win ... from what I can tell .. it's fairly obvious Cruz is your choice. You may not be ready to go out and campaign for him, but he's the one you think is best for the office. I'll reply when I can ... I don't think any of these people would do this country irreparable harm (we've survived several realllllly bad presidents), but I do have my opinions. What I would like to see Beth is for the Congress to take up their Constitutional responsibility in a serious way. With the seemingly ever stronger control of political party this is unlikely. This is one reason I would like to see the States come together and enforce their responsibility to the Constitution by making disregarding one’s Oath of Office as an impeachable offense. They could do this by initiating a Constitutional case as the injured party. That is, the States created the Constitution. The federal government and its functions were not part of that creation but were the result of that creation and exist entirely within the words of the Constitution. Those who are elected to, or appointed to, or are employed by, that which is created by the Constitution, take an Oath to protect and defend that Constitution, in other words abide by that Constitution. Since those of the federal government, those created by the Constitution, do not abide by that Constitution (that contract among the States), that contract among the States, the States are therefore injured by that lack of adherence, that breaking of their Solemn Oath. Therefore, each State should be able to recall their elected representatives and discharge them from office. Those who have been appointed or employed would them be discharged from office by new elected representatives. Either they abide by their Oath of Office or they are in breach of their office. I realize that few in government will agree, but in this context the States hold the power. If there is no adherence to the Contract, then there is no Contract and the States are free to reform as they will. The situation we now have is not working and so something has to be done. There is no way that any new president has the Presidential Constitutional power to do any of this. That President is only an operational executive responsible to the States. In what way is the "situation" not working? "States' Rights Constitutionalists" aka Tea Party Constitutionalists, are widely considered to be code categories for the worst sort of ideologues, I lean more toward the populists, so that doesn't set well with me at all.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Apr 24, 2016 23:17:39 GMT -5
Still don't see a direct answer to my question.
Quoting from your original post above
"The situation we now have is not working and so something has to be done."
In what way is the "situation" not working?
I'm already aware of your extreme opinions in re. the Constitution, so just wondered what you meant by that remark.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Apr 25, 2016 8:52:48 GMT -5
Still don't see a direct answer to my question. Quoting from your original post above "The situation we now have is not working and so something has to be done." In what way is the "situation" not working? I'm already aware of your extreme opinions in re. the Constitution, so just wondered what you meant by that remark. Beth, I’ll suggest that we have quite different views of our country, so much so that while my answer to your question in my mind is fully answered, to you apparently it appears that I haven’t addressed it. To try to demonstrate this wide difference I’ll begin by referring to your comment, “ . . . . I'm already aware of your extreme opinions in re. the Constitution . . . “ My opinions of the Constitution are not extreme but rather representative of just what the Constitution of the United States is and how it is meant to function. My comments relative to the Constitution are solidly placed not only in the Founding but in the applied law of the Constitution as defined by the Supreme Court and by Constitutional scholars. In that context, the federal government and its parts must function within that context or, “it is not working.” Certainly that is the case today. I do not speak for you, but my impression is that you believe that the Constitution is working just find. Such a perspective, if true, is nearly incomprehensible to me. To use a couple of examples, the intrusion of the federal government into local education is extraconstitutional. By intruding in local education, the result of that education has deteriorated. Here it is obvious that the Constitution is not working in that particular context. The idea of a federal minimum wage is not supportable from a Constitutional perspective. The federal government has no Constitutional role in setting the wages of workers. Since it is involved, the Constitution is not working. It is not that these things (education and minimum wage) and many more should not be addressed, but rather they are the responsibility of State governments and not that of the federal government. To have the federal government intrude into what it is barred (Constitutionally) from doing, is to destroy the function of the Constitution. Another area is that of the federal military as a Constitutional Delegated Power to protect and defend the people of the United States. It is something that it is supposed to do and yet today the federal government has been weakening that military to the point that such a federal responsibility is not being enacted. Here too the Constitution is not working. I realize that there are those who seem to believe that when some need (that they have defined as a need) seems real, then the only way to address that need is by the federal government, even though doing so is outside of the Constitutionally Delegated Powers. Either the Constitution exists or it doesn’t. To exist it is a matter of law that it must be followed. If it is not followed, then the case can be made that in the sense of a contract between the States the Constitution is no longer functional. There is nothing extreme in this view. It represents the literal word meaning of the Constitution at the time of ratification. What alterations to that exist via Amendments and their meaning are the word meanings at the time each was ratified. This is not an extreme view of mine but that of literal word meaning scholars and Justices of the Constitution. Word meanings do not change over time within contracts and the Constitution is a form of contract. To make it clear, this is quite different from intent at the time of agreement, but is centered in word meaning at the time of agreement. This view is not extreme unless one does not believe in the validity of the Constitution. So my point is, to understand what I am referring to when I say it is not working, I mean that the Constitution as ratified, and as the laws have been determined through judicial review, are not working. Moreover (as an aside) I submit that populism cannot function unless the Constitution is functioning.
|
|
Jessiealan
xr
Member of the Month, October 2013
Posts: 8,726
|
Post by Jessiealan on Apr 25, 2016 9:44:42 GMT -5
What a good and interesting post, Men an tol.
A couple of comments:
The "extreme" part comes in when one is determined to put states rights over the federal government, with prejudice. In other words, Grover Norquist is not my cup of tea.
and,
Education is my field. There will always be problems with education. This is not a perfect world. It would be nice to see each and every state teach the same curriculum, so as to prepare the students equally for higher edu, no matter where they decide to go or what major they choose.
Isn't Obama working toward a free education to jr. college level (associate degree) for any who have the will to earn it? That would be wonderful, imo.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Apr 25, 2016 11:37:40 GMT -5
What a good and interesting post, Men an tol. A couple of comments: The "extreme" part comes in when one is determined to put states rights over the federal government, with prejudice. In other words, Grover Norquist is not my cup of tea. and, Education is my field. There will always be problems with education. This is not a perfect world. It would be nice to see each and every state teach the same curriculum, so as to prepare the students equally for higher edu, no matter where they decide to go or what major they choose. Isn't Obama working toward a free education to jr. college level (associate degree) for any who have the will to earn it? That would be wonderful, imo. Jessiealan, thank you for the comment. I don’t know what Grover Norquist has to do with this, but to make it clear, my interest in the Constitution is one of many years including my own research as well as learning from the efforts of some very fine scholars. Even so, I do not expect others to follow what I offer and at best hope that they begin their own research and study. However to the point here, within the Constitution the relative responsibilities of the federal government and the States are defined. In those delegated powers defining the federal government it rules supreme. In those things not Delegated to the Federal Government the States rule supreme. It is not a matter of placing one set of ‘rights’ (more correctly delegated powers) over another, it is a matter of following the relationship between the federal government and the States as defined within the Constitution. To make it (relatively speaking) easier, the federal government exists, and can only function as, the powers as Delegated within the Constitution. This concept was so important to the Founders that they stressed it by the writing of the 10th Amendment. “ . . . The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. . . . “ Education is not delegated to the federal government and is therefore reserved to the States. There is no ‘determination’ here to put States rights (powers) over the federal government but rather to adhere to the Constitution. Education is important. It is so important that it is a major foundation underlying our society. It is so important that this is a responsibility of each of the 50 States individually and shall be kept from the federal government. In this manner there is no possibility of social engineering from a national level. Moreover, each State shall have the opportunity to educate in the manner as is determined best for the citizens of that State. That approach made America one of the best educated countries in the world. As the federal government has become increasingly intrusive in education, the education result has deteriorated. Personally, I believe that a wide, in depth, Liberal Arts education through the 12 grade best serves our youth. Emphasis being placed on learning the English language, learning mathematics, learning at least the fundamentals of science and engineering. Beyond that it is within the rights of the youth and family to determine the best subsequent direction to follow after high school. A free education sounds great, but there is no such thing, in some manner the taxpayer will pay for it. However, there are many sources of grants outside of government to assist with learning beyond high school. Myself, I prefer the methodology of Hillsdale College in Hillsdale, Michigan where they accept no governmental funding and students are not supported with governmental monies. Most importantly there is no delegated power for the federal government to become involved in that education in any form. If we are talking about what type of education best fits a youth for a future, it depends on what you mean as a future. In my mind it means a future where the student becomes self-supporting as a free individual and that could mean learning a trade rather than going on to other secondary learning. I do understand (I believe) your reference to Education being your field, but education is in one form or another the concern of all. In my case I have taught in many areas of business as well as holding teaching seminars at college level and through Veteran groups, did mentoring at elementary levels. To me education is a community supported effort.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Apr 25, 2016 15:00:50 GMT -5
Nice post, but you're right, we have different ways of looking at things. More on that another time. Maybe tonight if I get to pull late hours again. ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) Since this is the Cruz thread I want to add an on-topic article and a comment.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Apr 25, 2016 15:12:30 GMT -5
This morning, the news sites were full of the information that Cruz and John Kasich had reached a "deal" to stop Trump. They would split up the states with upcoming primaries, thereby each pulling in enough votes to keep Donald from reaching his goal. I didn't have a lot of time to re-read and ponder but my knee-jerk reaction was ... this will never work out. Cruz will promise Kasich all kinds of things but he lies lake a common dog so won't keep his word. He wants Kasick to pull out of Indiana and let him (Cruz) have those delegates. Then (he said) he would go easy in Oregan and N. Mexico and let Kasich pick up more delegates there. lol Of course, Indiana has the first primary of the 3. I immediately thought ... Cruz will grab all those delegates and THEN not keep his word on NM and Oregon. Well, guess what! Here's the most recent story. Just hours after the "agreement". ha ha Cruz and Kasich not completely devoted to Cruz-Kasich allianceThe alliance between Sen. Ted Cruz and Gov. John Kasich is already seeing fractures. Just hours after the candidates announced a plan to deny Donald Trump from delegates in upcoming nominating contests, Cruz and Kasich are showing that they aren’t fully committed to the idea. One of the critical states in the agreement is Indiana, a state that votes May 4 and is seen as being a critical contest to keep Trump from winning the necessary 1237 delegates. Cruz and Kasich agreed that Kasich would not compete there and cede the state to Cruz. But at a diner in Philadelphia Monday morning, Kasich said he wouldn’t direct his voters to support Cruz in the Hoosier State — a critical decision that could have the most weight in the state. “I’ve never told them not to vote for me. They ought to vote for me, but I’m not over there campaigning and spending resources,” Kasich said. The Ohio governor will still be on the ballot in Indiana. Kasich said the purpose of the agreement is not to help the other get elected but to better allocate resources to ensure an open convention. “But look, this is a matter of resources and, you know, we’re running a national campaign and we want to apply our resources where we think they can be used most effectively and it’s all designed to stop Hillary Clinton from becoming president,” he said. Donald Trump, who says the two rivals are colluding to keep him from the nomination, quickly reacted to Kasich’s remark. Cruz wouldn’t throw his support behind Kasich in Oregon and New Mexico, two states where Cruz vowed to stay out. He also said the agreement was about resources. “Well listen this is a nationwide campaign and we’re making a decision where to focus our time, energy and resources. We are now focused very, very heavily on the state of Indiana,” he said. “It is significant that John Kasich is pulling out of Indiana and allowing us to go directly head to head with Donald Trump.” And at his campaign rally in Warwick, Rhode Island, Monday, Trump unleashed on both Cruz and Kasich. Continuing to call the system “rigged” and “fixed,” Trump rhetorically asked, “How do you give it to those people.” “How do you give a guy who’s millions of votes behind Trump, who’s 5 or 600 delegates behind Trump?” Trump said to the crowd, speaking of Cruz. After criticizing how Kasich eats pancakes, Trump knocked him for running in a distant third. “You can’t give it to Kasich because you can’t give it to a guy who’s one and 50,” he said. www.msnbc.com/msnbc/cruz-and-kasich-not-completely-devoted-cruz-kasich-alliance
|
|
|
Post by beth on Apr 25, 2016 15:15:41 GMT -5
Notice how often Cruz says "we" in regard to himself and his campaign. That's a well known trait of liars. They seldom say "I or Me". Gives them sliding room to wiggle around with slippery statements and misrepresentations.
|
|
|
Post by Sysop3 on Apr 25, 2016 16:16:21 GMT -5
Notice how often Cruz says "we" in regard to himself and his campaign. That's a well known trait of liars. They seldom say "I or Me". Gives them sliding room to wiggle around with slippery statements and misrepresentations. Kasich has started to do the same thing. Means he's hedging. I can see why so many Republicans are for Trump. Look at the choices.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Apr 25, 2016 16:24:55 GMT -5
Notice how often Cruz says "we" in regard to himself and his campaign. That's a well known trait of liars. They seldom say "I or Me". Gives them sliding room to wiggle around with slippery statements and misrepresentations. Beth, that is an interesting take on that phrasing. However, in business it was taught that the use of we was inclusive and supportive of team effort. I on the other hand was indicative of an overly large ego. It was important to keep the team working together toward positive conclusions. I suspect that the same approach is often used in political teams.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Apr 25, 2016 17:54:36 GMT -5
Notice how often Cruz says "we" in regard to himself and his campaign. That's a well known trait of liars. They seldom say "I or Me". Gives them sliding room to wiggle around with slippery statements and misrepresentations. Beth, that is an interesting take on that phrasing. However, in business it was taught that the use of we was inclusive and supportive of team effort. I on the other hand was indicative of an overly large ego. It was important to keep the team working together toward positive conclusions. I suspect that the same approach is often used in political teams. ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) Well, as a Communications major, I'll agree with you to a point. It's one of those little tricks used as a ruse to create a particular impression. Something with which Cruz et al would be abundantly familiar.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Apr 25, 2016 21:09:51 GMT -5
Beth, if I understand correctly you have less than a positive impression of Ted Cruz, and others have similar views.
I suggest that such a perspective is not meaningful due to the likelihood that Donald Trump will get the nomination. However, if the Republican Convention votes goes past two voting cycles, it isn’t likely that Donald Trump will get the nomination and it also isn’t likely that Ted Cruz will get the nomination. At that point anything can happen.
In such an event, initially there will be strong efforts by various State Delegates to control the outcome, but if it runs to as many as five votes, they will be looking for some solution and party leaders will likely have more of a hand in the outcome. For example, at that point a Rubio/Walker ticket might come into play.
The focus will then be on the beating of the Democratic nominees. If Hillary Clinton has not been indicted by that time it is most likely she won’t be indicted and the run will be against her and a Republican ticket of generally considered honest people should make short work of her. Bernie Sanders of course being a Democratic Socialist should be beatable by anyone who is a warm body.
Most likely, short of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton getting their respective nominations, this is a year when anything might happen.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Apr 25, 2016 22:32:58 GMT -5
It's totally meaningful to me.
Ol' trusTED (IMO, disgusTED) is the first political candidate I've found repulsive since Al Gore. If my little comments of dismay (honest and from the heart) can encourage only one person to take a closer look, it will be worth the effort.
|
|
|
Post by Sysop3 on Apr 25, 2016 23:42:17 GMT -5
It's totally meaningful to me. Ol' trusTED (IMO, disgusTED) is the first political candidate I've found repulsive since Al Gore. If my little comments of dismay (honest and from the heart) can encourage only one person to take a closer look, it will be worth the effort. Don't forget about Sarah P.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Apr 26, 2016 5:29:47 GMT -5
Beth, I wasn’t trying to complain or make any point about Ted Cruz or any other politician. I was just pointing out the difference in the articles as a point at the lack of credibility in nearly all of those who report what they assert is the truth. Their motivation makes no difference. I don’t believe that you will find any posting of mine in support of Ted Cruz. I have no desire or need to post any of my words or those of anyone else in support of Ted Cruz. I guess the best way I can explain it is that I regard Cruz the same way I do Dick Cheney or Sarah Palin (for different reasons) AND the way you seem to regard Obama and Hillary Clinton. Therefore, I'm much more likely to post about him (Cruz) in a negative way ... perfectly natural. Most articles about him are not flattering unless one goes to his (several) online sites set up for this campaign, so I have no trouble finding things to choose from. My main point was that if you believe the articles and comments posted here about him are unfair (and that's the impression I get), then, by all means, post something to balance it out. Our candidate choices are very poor all around this presidential election year. To me, Bernie is the best of the current field ... not a demon in spite of his far left views .. but someone who would put the people first. If he turns out to be the Democratic candidate, I'll probably vote for him. If it comes down to Hillary vs Trump, I'll probably vote for Donald. If it's Hillary vs Cruz, I'll definitely vote for Hillary. so will MOST republicans
|
|