Trump questions Cruz' eligibility to be POTUS

We don't need another "trendy" President, anyway. It's about time we had someone qualified and mature, with a substantial amount of wisdom beyond his or her years.

Equally important is someone who is "respected" overseas ... and who those overseas will believe he will pull the trigger if pushed too hard....which is what I mean by respect.

Last but not least ... someone who is consistent in his positions on issues. Originally Posted by LexusLover

You think that is Ted Cruz?

You have effectively defined what is considered a "strict constructionist" in Con Law.

For instance a "strict constructionist" would perhaps demand

....................... a search warrant with EVERY SEARCH of a person, place, or thing. Originally Posted by LexusLover

You mean as opposed to just wiretapping everything in sight? Heh.

You have effectively defined what is considered a "strict constructionist" in Con Law.

For instance a "strict constructionist" would perhaps demand

....................... a search warrant with EVERY SEARCH of a person, place, or thing. Originally Posted by LexusLover

And yet, until the early 1960's no such thing was required. Cops routinely searched people and places without warrants. It wasn't the exception, it was the rule.

That damn liberal Supreme Court back then...construing the Constitution and all. Which is a perfect example of that old Onion statement that I always bring up when people start talking about what the Constitution means

Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be

ESCONDIDO, CA—Spurred by an administration he believes to be guilty of numerous transgressions, self-described American patriot Kyle Mortensen, 47, is a vehement defender of ideas he seems to think are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and principles that brave men have fought and died for solely in his head.
Kyle Mortensen would gladly give his life to protect what he says is the Constitution's very clear stance against birth control.
"Our very way of life is under siege," said Mortensen, whose understanding of the Constitution derives not from a close reading of the document but from talk-show pundits, books by television personalities, and the limitless expanse of his own colorful imagination. "It's time for true Americans to stand up and protect the values that make us who we are."
According to Mortensen—an otherwise mild-mannered husband, father, and small-business owner—the most serious threat to his fanciful version of the 222-year-old Constitution is the attempt by far-left "traitors" to strip it of its religious foundation.

"Right there in the preamble, the authors make their priorities clear: 'one nation under God,'" said Mortensen, attributing to the Constitution a line from the Pledge of Allegiance, which itself did not include any reference to a deity until 1954. "Well, there's a reason they put that right at the top."

"Men like Madison and Jefferson were moved by the ideals of Christianity, and wanted the United States to reflect those values as a Christian nation," continued Mortensen, referring to the "Father of the Constitution," James Madison, considered by many historians to be an atheist, and Thomas Jefferson, an Enlightenment-era thinker who rejected the divinity of Christ and was in France at the time the document was written. "The words on the page speak for themselves."

According to sources who have read the nation's charter, the U.S. Constitution and its 27 amendments do not contain the word "God" or "Christ."

Mortensen said his admiration for the loose assemblage of vague half-notions he calls the Constitution has only grown over time. He believes that each detail he has pulled from thin air—from prohibitions on sodomy and flag-burning, to mandatory crackdowns on immigrants, to the right of citizens not to have their hard-earned income confiscated in the form of taxes—has contributed to making it the best framework for governance "since the Ten Commandments."

"And let's not forget that when the Constitution was ratified it brought freedom to every single American," Mortensen said.

Mortensen's passion for safeguarding the elaborate fantasy world in which his conception of the Constitution resides is greatly respected by his likeminded friends and relatives, many of whom have been known to repeat his unfounded assertions verbatim when angered. Still, some friends and family members remain critical.

"Dad's great, but listening to all that talk radio has put some weird ideas into his head," said daughter Samantha, a freshman at Reed College in Portland, OR. "He believes the Constitution allows the government to torture people and ban gay marriage, yet he doesn't even know that it guarantees universal health care."

Mortensen told reporters that he'll fight until the bitter end for what he roughly supposes the Constitution to be. He acknowledged, however, that it might already be too late to win the battle.

"The freedoms our Founding Fathers spilled their blood for are vanishing before our eyes," Mortensen said. "In under a year, a fascist, socialist regime has turned a proud democracy into a totalitarian state that will soon control every facet of American life."

"Don't just take my word for it," Mortensen added. "Try reading a newspaper or watching the news sometime."

And yet, until the early 1960's no such thing was required.

That damn liberal Supreme Court back then.... Originally Posted by timpage

for what? If you are talking about search warrants ....

.. perhaps you are thinking about the distinction between Federal and State action.....

which was disposed by applying the "bill of rights" to the State actions, and not just Federal action.

"Like the rest of the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment originally only applied in federal court. However, in Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the rights guaranteed by the text of the Fourth Amendment (sans the exclusionary rule to be discussed below) apply equally in state courts via the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees to the citizen of every state the right to due process and equal protection of the laws. The process by which the Supreme Court has made certain fundamental liberties protected by the Bill of Rights applicable to the states is known as the doctrine of incorporation."

And yet, until the early 1960's no such thing was required. Cops routinely searched people and places without warrants. It wasn't the exception, it was the rule.

That damn liberal Supreme Court back then...construing the Constitution and all. Which is a perfect example of that old Onion statement that I always bring up when people start talking about what the Constitution means Originally Posted by timpage

Search warrants date to colonial times. The Fourth Amendment was made applicable to the states in 1949 (Wolf v. Colorado). Although the exclusionary rule applied after 1961 (Mapp v. Ohio)

Are you confusing it with Miranda warnings?

You think that is Ted Cruz? Originally Posted by timpage

Now ... is there anything I posted that even came close to what you just asked?

Here's the exchange we had that led to my comment, which resulted in your ...errr.....question:

"
Quote:
Originally Posted by timpage
One thing he has made absolutely clear is that he doesn't much give a shit about the team. It's about him. Not unusal in a politician but some are more polished at it than others. He's not one of those.

"We don't need another "trendy" President, anyway."

Were you "uncomfortable" with my agreeing with what you were posting? .... Just asking.

Mapp v. Ohio.

Now ... is there anything I posted that even came close to what you just asked? Originally Posted by LexusLover

No, but sometimes it's hard to tell.

It is not hard to predict what the left will do. CNN (the noted left wing news service) is now asking if Cruz is qualified. Funny, I don't remember a similar story on Obama in 2008.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/13/politi...ent/index.html

It is not hard to predict what the left will do. CNN (the noted left wing news service) is now asking if Cruz is qualified. Funny, I don't remember a similar story on Obama in 2008.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/13/politi...ent/index.html Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

its not very hard to predict what the right will do, that's for damn sure

It is not hard to predict what the left will do. CNN (the noted left wing news service) is now asking if Cruz is qualified. Funny, I don't remember a similar story on Obama in 2008.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/13/politi...ent/index.html Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Actually, you'd have to go back to 2004 to find similar stories on Obama.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53563.html

I love it. And, I presume given all the quacking that the birthers have done that they believe it is a legitimate inquiry. You fucking idiots put this in play. Live with it.

The Cuban was born in Canada, so according to tea party logic he is disqualified.
And for you dumb asses who think he will get the latin vote you are mistaken.
Mexicans dont like Cubans.

The Cuban was born in Canada, so according to tea party logic he is disqualified.
And for you dumb asses who think he will get the latin vote you are mistaken.
Mexicans dont like Cubans. Originally Posted by ilikefun

Especially those that go by the name "Ted" instead of their real name "Rafael".....is Crazy Cruz ashamed of his supposed "Latino" heritage?

And, it looks like that wise sage of all conservative issues, Ann Coulter, isn't so sure Rafael is eligible either....

http://www.mediaite.com/online/ann-c...open-and-shut/

No, but sometimes it's hard to tell. Originally Posted by timpage

Well, don't blame that on me. Or are you another "victim"?

This thread has two really good points in it:

"Hispanic" is not a race nor an ethnic group. Cubans, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Spaniards, are exceedingly different. And there is no uniformity even in those groups.

Trump is living proof that someone can be rich, stupid, and an asshole all at the same time.