Ted Cruz does not endorse Trump Based on Principles
Aside from the issues and facts that Mark presents; what about the constitutional values we expect our presidents, our presidential candidates and our representatives to pledge unswerving dedication to...their fortunes, their most sacred honor or their lives to. Isn't that much more important than the "Party"?
I have to laugh even though it's a bit sicking, they booed when Cruz said: "Vote your conscience" "Vote for the candidate you trust and a candidate that will adhere to the constitution.
Kind of makes one think. By the way...that pledge?...was discarded March 29th by the Don himself...
We find ourselves here in these times because we haven't adhered to the constitution...have we not?
I have to laugh even though it's a bit sicking, they booed when Cruz said: "Vote your conscience" "Vote for the candidate you trust and a candidate that will adhere to the constitution.
Kind of makes one think. By the way...that pledge?...was discarded March 29th by the Don himself...
We find ourselves here in these times because we haven't adhered to the constitution...have we not?
Previous comments... You are currently on page 5.
They are completely different circumstances! I will repeat to you again, the problem lies in your claim that the two situations are equivalent. They are not. I reject it for what it is: a deliberate and calculated lie. There is no equivalency between the black rights movement and the gay marriage movement.
Under the Fourteenth Amendment, the plaintiff must demonstrate BOTH that A) a right has been violated AND B) that the plaintiff received disparate treatment under the law.
A) Contracts are not rights. Therefore the Fourteenth Amendment test fails the first prong. The Court can summarily declare the plaintiff as without standing right there and dismiss the suit.
B) There can be no disparate treatment without an equality of material circumstances. The conditions of a heterosexual marriage and that of a homosexual "marriage" are very different and in the most material ways. Therefore the Fourteenth Amendment test fails the second prong as well!
So to recap:
#1. It is a gross violation of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Constitution for the Federal Government to be involved in marriage.
#2. It is a violation of authority for the States to assume the right to control marriage through the issuance of marriage licenses.
#3. Both prongs of the Fourteenth Amendment test fail to make this an issue for the Courts to consider under that statute even if one ignores #1 and #2 above.
...which is exactly what Constitutional attorney Ted Cruz said.
There should never be more than One ideology in America...the constitution as intended. Period.
The only differences should be how the government will defend us...the only valid reason and constitutionally enumerated for a Federal government.
I do not know how anything will ever change without individuals running for office that have no interest in political favors.
I personally believe that all problems stem from the moochers within political corruption rather than the groups fighting for social justice. In many ways they are closely tied at their roots but if you end political corruption, you can allow the system to correct to better benefit everyone.
AN ABSTENTION FROM VOTING FOR TRUMP, FOR ANY REASON! IS A VOTE FOR HILARY
END OF DISCUSSION !!!
It is irrelevant to the question you originally brought up, being gay marriage. You tried to bring up the racial argument as an analogy for gay marriage. The ONLY thing I did was to point out that such an analogy was false. The rest of the discussion was a red herring you don't want to seem to put to bed.
But since you want to go there, again ...
The premise you are (perhaps unknowingly supporting) is the notion that government should control and run education in the first place! I thought I made myself pretty clear that I reject such a notion. To be crystal clear: I reject treating anyone differently because of the color of their skin. I do not justify either the segregation which happened NOR the usurpation of power which enabled it in the first place. But neither do I justify the use of force by one governmental entity to force change in another without proper authority.
If you want to accept the flawed premise that State governments have the authority to run education, then they absolutely do have a duty under the Fourteenth Amendment to extend the same privileges to all citizens and that the Federal Government as arbiter of Constitutional questions remains the last bastion of protection for these rights. I never argued contrary to that. The problem is that it is a bandaid - not a remedy.
"The “Jim Crow” laws across the South and elsewhere are a perfect example of the violation of individual rights by state governments."
Yes. They were. 100% in agreement. Next point.
"So by this standard, both the state of Kentucky and Kim Davis initiated force. Ted Cruz supported her alleged Constitutional right to do so. "
You are grossly misrepresenting not only the facts of the case, but impugning Cruz for something he did not do. Just because the Supreme Court declared something does not make it law. Only the Legislative Branch can craft law. The only real power of the Judicial is to declare a law null and void. Kim Davis opposed signing her name to a certificate authorizing the practice of something she opposed - something which also was declared illegal under State Law. She had two Constitutional reasons not to sign those certificates. Cruz upheld her right to object AND went further by noting that the Federal Government had no authority under the Constitution to tell Kentucky what to do in such a case. Cruz objected to the heavy hand of the Federal Government. He wasn't forcing anything else on anyone else.
You claim I “invented” those words and put them in your mouth, and that it’s a false analogy. I intended it not as an analogy, but rather as an actual example based on your earlier statements. Earlier you said, “One can only legally ‘intervene’ where one has authority to do so. It doesn't make it right for the States to engage in racism in public schooling, but one wrong doesn't justify another.” I interpret these statements to mean that you believe the Supreme Court’s 1954 decision outlawing segregation in public schools was wrong – please let me know if I am incorrect. If the Supreme Court decision had gone the other way, African-Americans would have had no recourse to rectify this injustice. African-American children would have been compelled to continue attending inferior schools (private as well as public schools, thanks to “Jim Crow” laws mandating segregation in private as well as public businesses).
Re my statement: "Why anyone on this site would be okay with state and local governments violating the rights of their citizens is beyond me."
You replied: “Show me the right you are talking about and I'll agree with you. Again: rights are individual - not collective.” The “Jim Crow” laws across the South and elsewhere are a perfect example of the violation of individual rights by state governments. They mandated racial segregation in both public and private schools within their jurisdiction, as well as most other private businesses, thus violating the rights of private individuals to engage in certain activities, associations and contracts with private individuals of other races.
Re my statement: "Issuing a marriage license to a gay couple is not an initiation of force . . ."
You replied: “It is an initiation of force and usurpation of power to mandate the need of a marriage license and to impose one's self as the arbiter of such claims.” The state of Kentucky mandated the need of a marriage license, and Kim Davis imposed herself as the arbiter of whether or not a couple could obtain one. So by this standard, both the state of Kentucky and Kim Davis initiated force. Ted Cruz supported her alleged Constitutional right to do so. What is your position on this issue? Should state governments be free to initiate force until a majority of their citizens vote to cease doing so?
It is an initiation of force and usurpation of power to mandate the need of a marriage license and to impose one's self as the arbiter of such claims. Again, my policy suggestion is to do away with marriage licensing altogether.
"Why anyone on this site would be okay with state and local governments violating the rights of their citizens is beyond me."
Show me the right you are talking about and I'll agree with you. Again: rights are individual - not collective. Furthermore, one person's engagement in a contract can not impose conditions on a third party without their consent. THAT is coercion. And that is precisely what is happening in Europe and Canada as the right to free speech and free association is being trampled upon by proponents of gay marriage.
"Do you really believe that members of racial minorities should have no recourse"
No. You invented those words and put them in my mouth. I did not say them. You were the one who tried to bring up and impose a false analogy to support your position. I simply pointed out that the analogy was false.
Issuing a marriage license to a gay couple is not an initiation of force, even if it offends the religious sensibilities of certain social conservatives. It does not “promote” anything; if it did, then issuing marriage licenses to heterosexual couples would likewise establish a State religion and “force a religious value on the rest of us in direct violation of the First Amendment.”
Re: “Why anyone on this site would advocate for greater Governmental control is beyond me.”
Why anyone on this site would be okay with state and local governments violating the rights of their citizens is beyond me. The issue is not greater government control, the issue is whether a higher level of government should intervene to protect its citizens from violations of their individual rights by lower levels of government. Do you really believe that members of racial minorities should have no recourse if their state or local governments practice racial discrimination? This site is about individual rights, not the “rights” of states to do just about anything they please because the Constitution allegedly allows them to do so.
"Regarding lack of federal authority over marriage, there is an equal lack of federal authority over education."
I agree. The federal government has no authority over education and shouldn't be involved whatsoever. No "No Child Left Behind". No education subsidies. No school lunch (and now breakfast) programs. No Department of Education - unless solely as a voluntary advisory board to gather and promulgate best practices and success stories.
"So by your logic, states would have the perfect right to segregate their schools by race and the federal government would have no power or responsibility to intervene."
One can only legally "intervene" where one has authority to do so. It doesn't make it right for the States to engage in racism in public schooling, but one wrong doesn't justify another. Does the United States have any right to tell China how to run its country even though they have nothing even close to a First Amendment? No. Why? Because we lack authority. Does the United States have the authority to depose Syrian President Bashar Assad? No. We can demonstrate a good example, but the second you allow one entity to usurp authority over another even for an ostensibly good cause you create the monster our Federal Government has become. The Welfare State is another perfect example of this.
"What the feds are doing, properly, is prohibiting states from forcing the religious values of the majority on the rest of their citizens."
Um, no. What they are doing is forcing a religious value (one which promotes homosexual unions) on the rest of us in direct violation of the First Amendment. They are establishing a State religion or religious philosophy. Why anyone on this site would advocate for greater Governmental control is beyond me.
Don't believe me? Look at Canada, who very recently published laws which would violate our First Amendment saying that not even pastors or religious authorities can speak about their beliefs if they contradict homosexual unions on pain of "hate crimes" penalties. That should cause any free thinking person who values individual rights to pause, because that very notion has already been brought up as legislation in our own House and Senate (it was voted down in Committee).
"I am saying that there is a Constitutional right for citizens of each state to be given equal treatment under the law."
I agree with you. What I demonstrated is that the Fourteenth does not apply - and for several reasons.
Infertility is the sign of a defective bodily system - not a legal precedent. Nor does it preclude couples from adopting. Marriage deals with the possibility - not the guarantee. Marriage is all about a lifelong commitment to one's spouse and children. Sex is only a part of that. Too many people - especially homosexuals - want to make it about the act rather than recognize that the act is an act of commitment. Why are STD's such a huge - and growing - problem? Because marriage has been deemed irrelevant.
Again, my position is to do away with marriage licenses entirely and let people police themselves. That gives greatest latitude to the First Amendment and properly restricts government's role in something they shouldn't be involved with in the first place. That was precisely the case Ted Cruz laid out and I find that case to be on very solid Constitutional grounds.
Regarding lack of federal authority over marriage, there is an equal lack of federal authority over education. So by your logic, states would have the perfect right to segregate their schools by race and the federal government would have no power or responsibility to intervene.
The feds are not “forcing the majority of Americans to adopt a stance which directly contradicts their religious values.” Individual Americans can adopt any “stance” they please. What the feds are doing, properly, is prohibiting states from forcing the religious values of the majority on the rest of their citizens. The states are free at any time to get out of the marriage license business entirely.
I am not inferring that there is a “right to marry.” I am saying that there is a Constitutional right for citizens of each state to be given equal treatment under the law by their state and local governments. That pesky 14th Amendment again.
Re: “The whole purpose behind marriage was a pairing of complementary (i.e. opposite) sexes for the purpose of procreation.” Sounds like what I heard from the church during my Catholic upbringing; it certainly has no Constitutional relevance. Pairing for procreation can take place with or without marriage. And I guess your statement means that marriage is not an option for infertile or elderly couples. Maybe states should require fertility tests for marriage. Would you would consider such a test to be Constitutional?
Load more comments...