Iowa Caucus
-
This is the issue I have with someone fundamentally religious - when they make statements like:
...our rights do not come from the democratic party or the Republican party or even from the tea party. Our rights come from our creator.
- Ted Cruz, couple days ago
It implies that they want to impart the religious rule of their choosing over everybody, regardless of their religion.
-
Cruz looks and has the demeanor of every guilty party in an SVU episode.
-
This is the issue I have with someone fundamentally religious - when they make statements like:
...our rights do not come from the democratic party or the Republican party or even from the tea party. Our rights come from our creator.
- Ted Cruz, couple days ago
It implies that they want to impart the religious rule of their choosing over everybody, regardless of their religion.
No, that's what our constitution and declaration say.This is the issue I have with someone fundamentally religious - when they make statements like:
It implies that they want to impart the religious rule of their choosing over everybody, regardless of their religion.
I'm not a Cruz fan either, but this is a stretch.
-
This is the issue I have with someone fundamentally religious - when they make statements like:
...our rights do not come from the democratic party or the Republican party or even from the tea party. Our rights come from our creator.
- Ted Cruz, couple days ago
It implies that they want to impart the religious rule of their choosing over everybody, regardless of their religion.
This is the issue I have with someone fundamentally religious - when they make statements like:
It implies that they want to impart the religious rule of their choosing over everybody, regardless of their religion.
I don't see it that way. Cruz is a strong follower of the constitution and he has no intentions of trying to make the United States a theocracy.
-
This is the issue I have with someone fundamentally religious - when they make statements like:
It implies that they want to impart the religious rule of their choosing over everybody, regardless of their religion.
I don't see it that way. Cruz is a strong follower of the constitution and he has no intentions of trying to make the United States a theocracy.
Except when he says things like the supreme court ruling on gay marriage was unconstitutional and he's going to change it.I don't see it that way. Cruz is a strong follower of the constitution and he has no intentions of trying to make the United States a theocracy.
The constitution he's referring to is his bible.
-
Except when he says things like the supreme court ruling on gay marriage was unconstitutional and he's going to change it.I don't see it that way. Cruz is a strong follower of the constitution and he has no intentions of trying to make the United States a theocracy.
The constitution he's referring to is his bible.
Was the gay marriage ruling unanimous? If it wasn't there is at least some question among the scholars on the Supreme Court as to its constitutionality.Except when he says things like the supreme court ruling on gay marriage was unconstitutional and he's going to change it.
The constitution he's referring to is his bible.
Just like Obamacare. Split decision and decided specifically because the court decided that what Obama said was wrong. He said it is not a tax but the only way it could be found constitutional was to say that it was. And that's what they did.
There were at least three candidates much more invested in religion than Ted Cruz. Santorum Huckabee and Carson.
WSS
-
The constitution doesn't say anything about gays.
But it does say freedom and liberty for all. The 14th amendment equal protection clause was relevant in the decision iirc.
Gay marriage was always a state thing, the supreme Court ruled it's unconstitutional under the equal protection clause.
It was not unanimous but it doesn't matter, Ted Cruz wants to overrule the SCOTUS because the constitution's definition of equal rights don't correlate with his religious beliefs.
They'll shut him down, but as president he'd nominate batshit insane social conservative justices (it's likely the next POTUS will have to nominate at least a couple), then they'll have the power to set us back another 30 years.
-
The constitution doesn't say anything about gays.
But it does say freedom and liberty for all. The 14th amendment equal protection clause was relevant in the decision iirc.
Gay marriage was always a state thing, the supreme Court ruled it's unconstitutional under the equal protection clause.
It was not unanimous but it doesn't matter, Ted Cruz wants to overrule the SCOTUS because the constitution's definition of equal rights don't correlate with his religious beliefs.
They'll shut him down, but as president he'd nominate batshit insane social conservative justices (it's likely the next POTUS will have to nominate at least a couple), then they'll have the power to set us back another 30 years.
The constitution doesn't say anything about gays.
But it does say freedom and liberty for all. The 14th amendment equal protection clause was relevant in the decision iirc.
Gay marriage was always a state thing, the supreme Court ruled it's unconstitutional under the equal protection clause.
It was not unanimous but it doesn't matter, Ted Cruz wants to overrule the SCOTUS because the constitution's definition of equal rights don't correlate with his religious beliefs.
They'll shut him down, but as president he'd nominate batshit insane social conservative justices (it's likely the next POTUS will have to nominate at least a couple), then they'll have the power to set us back another 30 years.
So you think that your batshit insane Democrats in the houses would confirm that nomination?
PSMs I'm wrong the Constitution doesn't say anything about marriage either.
WSS
-
The constitution doesn't say anything about gays.
But it does say freedom and liberty for all. The 14th amendment equal protection clause was relevant in the decision iirc.
Gay marriage was always a state thing, the supreme Court ruled it's unconstitutional under the equal protection clause.
It was not unanimous but it doesn't matter, Ted Cruz wants to overrule the SCOTUS because the constitution's definition of equal rights don't correlate with his religious beliefs.
They'll shut him down, but as president he'd nominate batshit insane social conservative justices (it's likely the next POTUS will have to nominate at least a couple), then they'll have the power to set us back another 30 years.
So you think that your batshit insane Democrats in the houses would confirm that nomination?
PSMs I'm wrong the Constitution doesn't say anything about marriage either.
WSS
So you think that your batshit insane Democrats in the houses would confirm that nomination?
PSMs I'm wrong the Constitution doesn't say anything about marriage either.
WSS
No but the congress is currently republican controlled.
The marriage thing has always been a state law, the ruling was just that it was unconstitutional via the equal protection clause - which basically says States must guarantee equal protection of the laws.
-
Except when he says things like the supreme court ruling on gay marriage was unconstitutional and he's going to change it.I don't see it that way. Cruz is a strong follower of the constitution and he has no intentions of trying to make the United States a theocracy.
The constitution he's referring to is his bible.
Except when he says things like the supreme court ruling on gay marriage was unconstitutional and he's going to change it.
The constitution he's referring to is his bible.
How does he change it as president? Once the Supreme Court ruled on this there is not a whole lot that can be done. Cruz is a big time advocate of following the constitution and I don't see where anyone should be frightened of that.
-
Except when he says things like the supreme court ruling on gay marriage was unconstitutional and he's going to change it.
The constitution he's referring to is his bible.
How does he change it as president? Once the Supreme Court ruled on this there is not a whole lot that can be done. Cruz is a big time advocate of following the constitution and I don't see where anyone should be frightened of that.
How does he change it as president? Once the Supreme Court ruled on this there is not a whole lot that can be done. Cruz is a big time advocate of following the constitution and I don't see where anyone should be frightened of that.
He thinks the supreme court ruling on gay marriage is a violation of the "religious liberty" provided by the constitution.
"I will defend the constitution of the United States....unless it conflicts with my personal beliefs"
-
How does he change it as president? Once the Supreme Court ruled on this there is not a whole lot that can be done. Cruz is a big time advocate of following the constitution and I don't see where anyone should be frightened of that.
He thinks the supreme court ruling on gay marriage is a violation of the "religious liberty" provided by the constitution.
"I will defend the constitution of the United States....unless it conflicts with my personal beliefs"
Oh well, for better or worse whatever the Constitution says about religious liberty is now a moot point. That horse has left the barn.He thinks the supreme court ruling on gay marriage is a violation of the "religious liberty" provided by the constitution.
"I will defend the constitution of the United States....unless it conflicts with my personal beliefs"
He can't change anything without an amendment anyway and that requires 60% of the vote I think.
WSS
-
How does he change it as president? Once the Supreme Court ruled on this there is not a whole lot that can be done. Cruz is a big time advocate of following the constitution and I don't see where anyone should be frightened of that.
He thinks the supreme court ruling on gay marriage is a violation of the "religious liberty" provided by the constitution.
"I will defend the constitution of the United States....unless it conflicts with my personal beliefs"
He thinks the supreme court ruling on gay marriage is a violation of the "religious liberty" provided by the constitution.
"I will defend the constitution of the United States....unless it conflicts with my personal beliefs"
The gay marriage ruling was a 5-4 decision with 4 justices strongly disagreeing with it so it was not a slam dunk ruling even with the great legal minds. Cruz sides with the 4 dissenting judges. As president he may get to nominate conservative judges but I don't see much else he can do once the Supreme Court has ruled.
-
Cripes.
If Cruz thinking the gay marriage issue is a big enough problem to "platform" it and try to change as president, We are fucked.
If you think the gay marriage issue "potentially" being changed by Cruz is a keystone problem, we are fucked.
-
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
While I don't disagree with you as we can see with the language of the First Amendment it strictly is talking about the power of Congress and the creation of law. Every situation that determines what speech is allowed and which isn't is strictly "our" interpretation of what was intended by the First Amendment.
The rights provided under the first amendment do not extend to private property. There's many court cases about it but I'm too lazy to look them up.
Universities are different too, but generally disrupting a public forum or class activities would not be guaranteed under the first amendment either.
And we're not talking about the government intervening here, although those rules don't necessarily apply to the secret service.
But you can be told to leave, if you refuse then you are trespassing.
The rights provided under the first amendment do not extend to private property. There's many court cases about it but I'm too lazy to look them up.
Universities are different too, but generally disrupting a public forum or class activities would not be guaranteed under the first amendment either.
And we're not talking about the government intervening here, although those rules don't necessarily apply to the secret service.
But you can be told to leave, if you refuse then you are trespassing.
Again, my point is interpretation. People that are constantly quoting the Constitution are not speaking in terms of the actual document and it's language but more how lawyers have interpreted it over the years.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login