# Ted Cruz possible attorney general



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

Great choice, IMO

https://www.thenation.com/article/ted-cruz-would-be-a-very-dangerous-attorney-general/


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

Too bigoted, going by his public statements.


----------



## Blackhawkman (Apr 9, 2014)

Good choice! Change ain't always purty!


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

hillman said:


> Too bigoted, going by his public statements.


I think you've been reading too many "Left Wing" websites.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

pic said:


> Great choice, IMO
> 
> https://www.thenation.com/article/ted-cruz-would-be-a-very-dangerous-attorney-general/


I'd rather see him take Scalia's place on the Supreme Court. Sen. Cruz is a true originalist and Constitutional Conservative to the core.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

desertman said:


> I'd rather see him take Scalia's place on the Supreme Court. Sen. Cruz is a true originalist and Constitutional Conservative to the core.


Im looking at immediate action tha Attorney General will have to deal with , the current lawbreaking , sanctuary cities, border control,etc. if I was a mayor and declared a sanctuary city status, Ted Cruz would be the last AG i would want to piss off, lol. 
Besides, the AG would be a great stepping stone to the Supreme Court..

:smt1099


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

If you liked Scalia, you would love Cruz. He is rock-solid on the Constitution, as written, and has the experience to back it up. AG is a natural fit for him, and doesn't preclude a later appointment to the Supreme Court.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

I get the impression that some of you folks don't get what the Constitution - as written - is. It _is_ the framework that subsequent laws have to fit into. It _ain't_ the whole passel of laws that can be enacted.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

hillman said:


> I get the impression that some of you folks don't get what the Constitution - as written - is. It _is_ the framework that subsequent laws have to fit into. It _ain't_ the whole passel of laws that can be enacted.


Of course it's the framework that not just subsequent laws must fit into, but that all laws must fit into it. All public officials put their hand on a bible and swear to uphold the Constitution "so help them God". Take the word God out of everything which the "Left" is so eager to do, than government becomes their God. Just as the German's swore allegiance to Adolf Hitler. Can you imagine instead of "so help me God" so help me Obama, Clinton or to be fair Trump?

Unfortunately there are many laws that have been enacted that are blatantly unconstitutional, yet upheld by "Left Wing" justasses who put their ideology above "Constitutional Law". DC's and Chicago's handgun ban before "Heller and McDonald" is proof of this. New York's "Safe Act" is another example. Although not yet decided by the courts that law will remain in affect until after a long, expensive and protracted court fight. In the meantime those caught in violation of it could be sent to prison. How is it unconstitutional? By criminalizing the possession without due process of legally held private property. Liberal's could care less about individual civil liberties. No one should have to worry about facing criminal prosecution especially for violating laws that are passed solely for the purpose of political retribution. Cuomo made that quite clear when he stated after the "Safe Act" was passed that: "People who do not think like him are not welcome in New York". What better way to punish your political enemies than by criminalizing their otherwise lawful possessions or activities with just a stroke of a pen? Make no mistake about it they hate us, and will use any means necessary to destroy us. Because of that the feelings are reciprocal.

The "Left" has always believed in a "living breathing Constitution" using the bench to circumvent the difficult amendment process set by law. The Constitution is the one document that prevents them from enslaving us to their sordid and devious agenda. The Constitution is there to ensure individual civil liberties from an oppressive form of government and or majority rule. Which is an anathema to their way of thinking. It really is that simple. I don't know where you get the idea that some of us folks just don't get it? The fact is that most of us especially in the gun owning fraternity do get it and get it well. One of the reasons the "Left" is so eager to destroy and discredit us.


----------



## warcloud (Oct 24, 2013)

Good man for the job.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

_desertman_, one needs to look at the Constitution - _and the law that is under review_ - with both eyes open, not just the right eye. Aside from that oft-ignored ideal, those "laws that are passed solely for the purpose of political retribution" have to 1) get to SCOTUS, and 2) be accepted for review. Unless the first hurdle is cleared ($$ for attorneys at lower courts) even a conservative SCOTUS is stymied.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

hillman said:


> _desertman_, one needs to look at the Constitution - _and the law that is under review_ - with both eyes open, not just the right eye. Aside from that oft-ignored ideal, those "laws that are passed solely for the purpose of political retribution" have to 1) get to SCOTUS, and 2) be accepted for review. Unless the first hurdle is cleared ($$ for attorneys at lower courts) even a conservative SCOTUS is stymied.


None of this should be a "right" or "left" issue. We are a Constitutional Republic where the majority does not rule. Majority rule is where you have two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner? That's what the passage of New York's "Safe Act" was. Democrats control New York State with an iron fist. There was no way in hell that it was not going to pass. This same shit's happening in California, another bastion of "progressive tolerance" towards those that do not think like them.

Stymied? How many lawyers do we need to be able to determine what "Shall not be infringed" means? Or what the meaning of "is" is? It is obvious to anyone who has been paying attention to the hatred, vitriol and accusations towards those of us that believe in "Constitutional Law". That these laws are for political retribution and political retribution only. For one example; they are consistently blaming members of the NRA for every mass murder that occurs. Hitler said similar things about the Jewish race. We all know how well that turned out. The passage of New York's "Safe Act" is anything but keeping people "safe". Cuomo's statement afterward's confirms this.

Of course it has to go through the courts to justify that law. Unfortunately the courts are ideologically driven. The case could go either way. This could go on for years and at great expense. In the meantime tens of thousand of law abiding gun owners in New York State have now been made into criminals for refusing to comply with this unjust law.

Hopefully with the election of DJT this law and others like it will be overturned by nominating and confirming justices such as Scalia to the Supreme Court and federal judiciary.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

Bisley said:


> If you liked Scalia, you would love Cruz. He is rock-solid on the Constitution, as written, and has the experience to back it up. AG is a natural fit for him, and doesn't preclude a later appointment to the Supreme Court.


A first term senator would be a tough argument for a Supreme Court justice,, even though he has arguements based on the constitution . Never served on a court bench, just thought the AG would look good on a resume


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

hillman said:


> I get the impression that some of you folks don't get what the Constitution - as written - is. It _is_ the framework that subsequent laws have to fit into. It _ain't_ the whole passel of laws that can be enacted.


The Supreme Courts job was to enforce the Constitution and not rewrite it........


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

I would tend to agree that Hillman has a good point. 
The constitution as written , in many ways , leaves itself open for interpretation.


----------



## AirForceShooter (May 6, 2006)

Cruz has said he doesn't want SCOTUS or the AG spot.

He wants to be POTUS.

AFS


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

When I said, "as written," I meant that the Constitution is a fairly simple document that is basically the charter for a union of sovereign states. It does not attempt to cover every possible subject that could come up. It simply lays out which 'platitudes' are actual rights, and leaves the details to the sovereign states, who can make laws to govern their particular region, according to the will of the people. The amendment process was designed specifically to allow it to keep up with changing times, so as not to become irrelevant. 

The fact that passing a new amendment is very hard insures that a very definite majority will be required for it to become the law of the land. It is also the reason that one side or the other is always going to try to circumvent the Constitution and downplay its significance to those who make up its own particular 'majority.'


----------



## AirForceShooter (May 6, 2006)

AG is going to Jeff Sessions

Reported this am

AFS


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

Bisley said:


> When I said, "as written," I meant that the Constitution is a fairly simple document that is basically the charter for a union of sovereign states. It does not attempt to cover every possible subject that could come up. It simply lays out which 'platitudes' are actual rights, and leaves the details to the sovereign states, who can make laws to govern their particular region, according to the will of the people. The amendment process was designed specifically to allow it to keep up with changing times, so as not to become irrelevant.
> 
> The fact that passing a new amendment is very hard insures that a very definite majority will be required for it to become the law of the land. It is also the reason that one side or the other is always going to try to circumvent the Constitution and downplay its significance to those who make up its own particular 'majority.'


I was not referring to you (Mr. Bisley) or anyone in particular. Matter of fact , you're very very much on point,,, great sensibility.

Im just wondering now, what's gonna happen with Cruz , now that they made SESSSIONS the AG. 
CRUZ has pissed off a lot republicans in the past,I wonder if there was negative feedback, who knows,but I believe Cruz is still part of the big plan.

Trump putting Pence in charge of picking the team was a great first move. 
Trumps promise to pick the Right people, the smartest people seems to be working well.
I like huckabee, Gingrich 
Trump n Pence seem to be tapping into the Best of the Best

Make America Great Again :smt1099


----------



## AirForceShooter (May 6, 2006)

I'm praying Gingrich finds a senior cabinet post.

He's too smart to leave on the bench

AFS


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

pic said:


> I would tend to agree that Hillman has a good point.
> The constitution as written , in many ways , leaves itself open for interpretation.


I know it's the way it is usually stated, but it isn't the Constitution that is 'interpreted', rather it's the issue/law brought before the Court. Either it fits the Constitution or it doesn't. Some of those issues have been covered in smoke to make them seem to fit. The justices' job is to see through the smoke.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

Exactly. 

It is the job of the judges to determine whether the Constitution addresses the question, or is silent on the subject. If it is silent, there is nothing for them to do, unless they need to correct a lower federal court's ruling that should not have been applied.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

hillman said:


> I know it's the way it is usually stated, but it isn't the Constitution that is 'interpreted', rather it's the issue/law brought before the Court. Either it fits the Constitution or it doesn't. Some of those issues have been covered in smoke to make them seem to fit. The justices' job is to see through the smoke.


Take the 2nd amendment, it's been interpreted an argued very much so.

Freedom of speech is vastly interpreted ,example of many, we can now burn the American FLAG , cmon, it was almost a crime to let IT TOUCH THE GROUND IN THE PAST !!


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

pic said:


> Take the 2nd amendment, it's been interpreted an argued very much so.
> 
> Freedom of speech is vastly interpreted ,example of many, we can now burn the American FLAG , *cmon, it was almost a crime to let IT TOUCH THE GROUND IN THE PAST !!*


Ah, the good old days! They used to break out the fire hoses to quell rioting protestors, knocking them on their ****ing asses. Oh how I yearn for the good old days.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

pic said:


> Take the 2nd amendment, it's been interpreted an argued very much so.
> 
> Freedom of speech is vastly interpreted ,example of many, we can now burn the American FLAG , cmon, it was almost a crime to let IT TOUCH THE GROUND IN THE PAST !!


Your confusion is easy to understand. Some SCOTUS justices have had the same confusion. Doesn't make it so.


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

Cruz would be a great pick for the Court and I don't think the Senate would want to block because they would be rid of him in the Senate.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

hillman said:


> Your confusion is easy to understand. Some SCOTUS justices have had the same confusion. Doesn't make it so.


A leaning leftist as yourself will view or interpret parts of the constitution or Bible differently then say Desertman who leans to the right. YOUR Confusion is easily understood :smt033


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

pic said:


> Take the 2nd amendment, it's been interpreted an argued very much so.
> 
> Freedom of speech is vastly interpreted ,example of many, we can now burn the American FLAG , cmon, it was almost a crime to let IT TOUCH THE GROUND IN THE PAST !!


Speaking of burning the flag being protected by the Constitution (actually the Bill of Rights), this is a perfect example of interpretation. There is absolutely nothing in the First Amendment which addresses freedom of expression. It ain't in there. So we have things like burning the flag, Maplethorpe's exhibits, and similar examples. SCOTUS could have used the Ninth Amendment as grounds for flag burning or female genitalia as featured fair on dinner plates but it didn't. So it magically and mysteriously discovered freedom of expression in the First Amendment, no doubt under the guise that the Founders really did intend speech and expression to be one of the same, regardless of The Oxford Dictionary meaning.

Interpretation is a funny thing. It can be made to bend with the whim of the times, the prejudices in vogue, and the individuals seated on that astute bench. Which really means that interpretation comes down to legislation from those other than the Peoples' representatives.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

pic said:


> A *leaning leftist* as yourself will view or interpret parts of the constitution or Bible differently then say Desertman who leans to the right. YOUR Confusion is easily understood :smt033


Hah. The correct label is 'left-leaning centrist'.

I don't interpret the Constitution; it's right there in black and white. It means what it says, and doesn't mean more than it says.

The major problem SCOTUS has is case law. They are a bunch of lawyers. Lawyers love case law, because if they buy that story they don't have to think about the original.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

hillman said:


> Hah. The correct label is 'left-leaning centrist'.
> 
> I don't interpret the Constitution; it's right there in black and white. It means what it says, and doesn't mean more than it says.
> 
> The major problem SCOTUS has is case law. They are a bunch of lawyers. Lawyers love case law, because if they buy that story they don't have to think about the original.


lol, now that's funny. A centrist is somewhere near the middle leaning one way or the other. 
A Hillary supporter (as yourself ) is more then a centrist ,:smt033 you are more then a leaning or centrist Hillary supporter. 
But voting for Hillary was your right to do so.

I learned a long time ago ,what appears to be written in black n white is not always true to the script.

I have experienced written constitutions ( not the USA doc.) written in black n white. I figured I had them nailed to the stake. It all depends on who controls the strings.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

pic said:


> lol, now that's funny. A centrist is somewhere near the middle leaning one way or the other.
> A Hillary supporter (as yourself ) is more then a centrist ,:smt033 you are more then a leaning or centrist Hillary supporter.
> But voting for Hillary was your right to do so.
> 
> ...


Voting for Hillary was certainly my right - but I didn't exercise it. The Donald is the lesser evil. I voted a split ticket (one Dem state senator who the NRA gave a A rating to). Vermont went for HC, I think because it's loaded with transplanted Flatties from downcountry. Hell, even NH went her way eventually.


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

To quote Mr. John Locke " The Bill of Rights were written in plain King's English so all may understand". I can't help but wonder how all those literate people could understand the Bill of Rights but today all these highly educated people don't.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

tony pasley said:


> To quote Mr. John Locke " The Bill of Rights were written in plain King's English so all may understand". I can't help but wonder how all those literate people could understand the Bill of Rights but today all these highly educated people don't.


Because...

The men who designed our system of government were better educated than those who currently occupy congress and the white house. Not only better educated but more worldly in that they were students of the historical record.
The listened to history and considered the eternal and perennial folly of Man.
Their agenda was to create something which had never before existed.
They were patriots to a man, having gone through a revolution to free themselves from tyranny.
They... were Americans in the truest sense.

Those who today would find all manner of things that are not in the document, in there and all manner of things in there, which are not really suffer from an affliction unique to modern liberal thought (modern as in the past 100 years). They don't like this country. They don't like her history, her culture, her heritage, and her traditions. And they don't like her Constitution or her Bill of Rights because both documents restrain them from doing that which they believe the must do in order to save us from ourselves. Our very freedoms emboldens them to do what they do, which ironically, would remove those same freedoms if they were to assume all which they hope to achieve.

Freedom and liberty are funny things. There shall always be sinister forces which cannot abide by these gifts because they get in the way of their ultimate goal. I am reminded of Jefferson's take on this...

*"In questions of power...let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."*

Think he was on to something?


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

hillman said:


> Voting for Hillary was certainly my right - but I didn't exercise it. The Donald is the lesser evil. I voted a split ticket (one Dem state senator who the NRA gave a A rating to). Vermont went for HC, *I think because it's loaded with transplanted Flatties from downcountry*. Hell, even NH went her way eventually.


We have this problem here in Virginia. If you look at a map of the counties which went for Trump, you see a sea of red. But then there is Northern Virginia and its 35% of the state's population. And NOVA contains a high concentration of foreigners, as in people not native to Virginia. A good deal of them have migrated here from the northeast and have brought with them their non-Virginia ideas. This is the single most significant reason for our once proud state to have gone over to the other side.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

SouthernBoy said:


> Think he was on to something?


Yes, he was.

George Washington was our greatest president because he understood that and was a good enough man to refuse his chance to become an American king. He was probably popular enough to have pulled it off, had he been so inclined, and many urged him to do just that. Instead, he set the two-term tradition that was followed for about 150 years...until the progressives began to succeed at whittling down the Constitution, with FDR, who stayed for four terms and tried to pack the Supreme Court by expanding its numbers. Fortunately, Congress stopped both of those attempts to usurp the Constitution by passing term limits for future presidents and refusing to increase the number of justices.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

SouthernBoy said:


> We have this problem here in Virginia. If you look at a map of the counties which went for Trump, you see a sea of red. But then there is Northern Virginia and its 35% of the state's population. And NOVA contains a high concentration of foreigners, as in people not native to Virginia. A good deal of them have migrated here from the northeast and have brought with them their non-Virginia ideas. This is the single most significant reason for our once proud state to have gone over to the other side.


Northeast Virginia is contaminated by proximity to DC. Vermont was contaminated by Interstates 91 and 89.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

hillman said:


> Northeast Virginia is contaminated by proximity to DC. Vermont was contaminated by Interstates 91 and 89.


I am native to this area so I know what has taken place here over the past 70 years. The close proximity to DC means jobs. And that is a major attraction. For sure there are others as well.


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

The Progressive start to destroy the Federalist ideas was started in the 1840s. It has been down hill ever since


----------

