Ted Cruz

[tipsntails7]

The constitution is like the bible, give it to 5 different people and they will take some of it 5 different ways...

 

[Mike7]

By the way, I was for Civil Unions before it was cool and before any progressive politicians were for them.

Now there are plenty of gay churches performing wedding ceremonies, but the gov't has no right forcing a church to perform weddings. Do you see the difference? A gay church should not have to wed heterosexuals, and the Catholic church for instance should not have to marry homosexuals. Both churches should have to accept people who are willing to follow their teachings. It just all seems to simple to me.
I love everybody and will stick up for the rights of a gay baker to not have to attend a heterosexual wedding if he/she doesn't want to.

I can only imagine that intolerance practiced by the gov't and judicial activists is for political and personal reasons, just as it is with progressive activist groups.

 

[airlocksniffer]

Airlock, I will admit that I am no Constitutional scholar, but I think that you confuse the idea of rights and privileges...and maybe this is what 5MilesBack was getting at before your insult. The 14th Ammendment doesn't give the Supreme Court the authority to create new rights and definitions or instruct the state how they will define this...and no one has a right to a "marriage" license. I would agree that there may be some standing for the Court to rule on how states offer those privileges in a fair and balanced way...i.e. require the states to offer a form of legal Civil Union to homosexual couples if they are going to offer it to another group. That Reagan chose Kennedy, has absolutely nothing to do with his judicial activism.

Fair enough. I think it comes down to being a Constitutional Originalist (Ted Cruz) or believing in a Living Constitution. I fall in the latter camp if you haven't guessed. Not going to continue to derail down a gay marriage path here. Apologies to the OP.

 

[Matt Cashell]

5MB,

Political compromise or common ground do not require a compromising of one's values. Public Lands (the original subject of this thread) are the perfect example. People with wildly different values can agree on this issue. They don't have to agree on others just because they agree on this.

Just like America.....the Constitution and the Bill of Rights should never be a compromise.

The irony is, of course, that the Constitution was a product of compromise, and the Bill of Rights was further the result of compromise. The country was founded on compromise and common ground. To make it seem like finding common ground is un-American is just untrue.

Furthermore, supporting Federal Lands is supporting Public Lands, as we have discussed before.

 

[dotman]

5MB,

Political compromise or common ground do not require a compromising of one's values. Public Lands (the original subject of this thread) are the perfect example. People with wildly different values can agree on this issue. They don't have to agree on others just because they agree on this.



The irony is, of course, that the Constitution was a product of compromise, and the Bill of Rights was further the result of compromise. The country was founded on compromise and common ground. To make it seem like finding common ground is un-American is just untrue.

Furthermore, supporting Federal Lands is supporting Public Lands, as we have discussed before.

Exactly... Thanks Matt. It just seems like some want their opinions to rule with zero objection, similar to communism, just look at the current admin and then the far right. It is their way or no way. The constitution is our guiding post and should guide all decisions. If a decision is deem controversial then the Sipreme Court should rule on it. Now we try to sway our interpretation by who is nominated of course but justice Scalia didn't always side with those that are far right. It is still a human interpretation in the end.

If your unwilling to compromise how will anything get done? Like I have said the constitution should be the final rule but that is really widely open to interpretation again, maybe none of you want the liberal justices to be open minded and just impose their liberal view, in their mind they are following the constitution.

 

[dotman]

Also if you are against Federal ownership of public lands then you are against the constitution as ruled by the Supreme Court and how our founding fathers setup our government, no diff then how the right to bare arms has been upheld by the Supreme Court.

 

[Mike7]

Fair enough. I think it comes down to being a Constitutional Originalist (Ted Cruz) or believing in a Living Constitution. I fall in the latter camp if you haven't guessed. Not going to continue to derail down a gay marriage path here. Apologies to the OP.

Airlock, this is a very honest & true assessment I think, and probably the source for many of these disagreements. The other source I think comes from people just having a basic disagreement of how much of a role gov't should take in many issues (For instance, I have a general disagree with special privileges assigned by the gov't to indivduals like with affirmative action, but my reason for this disagreement is because based upon my experiences I think policies like this meant to help minorities only end up hurting in the long run. However, I am all for private groups supporting whoever they wish whether it be minorities or others.)

Bitteroot, I am for public land use like you, but I wonder in the big picture how much is enough, particularly when the gov't closes much of this off to resource development? I don't know. And if we are supporting public land for the health of our society, rather than just our own selfish hunting lobby needs, then why don't we come out against use fees as well which discourage the public from actually utilizing this health promoting resource.

 

[RdRdrFan]

I fear, more than ever, for the future of our country when I read threads like this one. The ignorance and pompous arrogance runs deep with some. It is going to ruin our country. At this rate you won't have to worry about whether the state or the federal government owns the land. I'm just sad that my sons will not see our country in its splendor when they are old enough to appreciate it.

 

[5MilesBack]

The constitution is like the bible, give it to 5 different people and they will take some of it 5 different ways...

I'm glad you brought this up, because it is a perfect example. Just like the Bible, the Constitution must be interpreted in the eyes of the authors........not with some abstract opinions. So yes, you are correct.......if people use their own opinions on them, they will have 5 different opinions. Which is exactly why they aren't qualified for the job if that's their intention. Good point.

 

[airlocksniffer]

Leviticus 11:9-12 says:
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

#GodHatesShrimp

 

[mmw194287]

the Constitution must be interpreted in the eyes of the authors

I'm just curious, but I'm wondering how someone with this perspective makes sense of the various well-documented debates, disagreements, and compromises that led to/and persisted after ratification. One example would be Federalist opposition to the Louisiana Purchase. Obviously Jefferson wasn't in Philadelphia, but there were former convention delegates on both sides of this controversy. So which specific set of eyes are we supposed to interpret it through? Was Jefferson violating the constitution because some framers opposed him? Or was he acting within his constitutional authority because some framers supported him?

 

[jmez]

the Constitution must be interpreted in the eyes of the authors

And anything other than the authors actual eyes is simply ones opinion of what the author meant.

 

[5MilesBack]

At least everyone is seeing what happens when everyone uses their own opinions. LOL.

Just like if the designer and builder of a car wrote a guide for the requirement of use and repair guide with every detail in it, yet everyone decides to use their own opinion on how to use it or fix it. This stuff always works out well. Funny stuff.

 

[tipsntails7]

At least everyone is seeing what happens when everyone uses their own opinions. LOL.

Just like if the designer and builder of a car wrote a guide for the requirement of use and repair guide with every detail in it, yet everyone decides to use their own opinion on how to use it or fix it. This stuff always works out well. Funny stuff.

So you don't get to use your own opinion... Only what the founders say? Hmmm

 

[1hoda]

Compromise was what brought us the Constitution, which, once ratified, the founders all agreed was the supreme law of the land. They all compromised something to bring the federal government to life, but once it was law they all submitted themselves to it. As such they didn't view it open to interpretation.

They were smart enough to know that things would change, hence the 2 processes they devised to effect that. One of those two processes has been properly used 27 times. One has never been used.

 

[mmw194287]

...but once it was law they all submitted themselves to it. As such they didn't view it open to interpretation.

How do you square the banking controversy with that assessment? There are countless examples from the 1790s of the founding generation grappling with questions of constitutional interpretation.

 

[Matt Cashell]

How do you square the banking controversy with that assessment? There are countless examples from the 1790s of the founding generation grappling with questions of constitutional interpretation.

Or how about Marbury v. Madison (1803) with those very same founders hurling arguments at each other over what the words of the constitution meant. The result of that case was that the Supreme Court would decide constitutionality, and not the individual. "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."

The founding fathers eventually found common ground, and so can we with public lands.

Apparently Ted Cruz does not want to find that common ground with us, however, to bring the thread back to the OP.

 

[dotman]

Or how about Marbury v. Madison (1803) with those very same founders hurling arguments at each other over what the words of the constitution meant. The result of that case was that the Supreme Court would decide constitutionality, and not the individual. "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."

The founding fathers eventually found common ground, and so can we with public lands.

Apparently Ted Cruz does not want to find that common ground with us, however, to bring the thread back to the OP.

And unfortunately many others want the constitution to only meet their view points.

 

[gmajor]

Bringing it back to candidates...from Reno Gazette-Journal:

Marco Rubio:
"The federal government controls far too much land, especially in the Western states like Nevada. While there is clearly a legitimate role for federally owned and managed land in certain situations, we must empower states and tribes whenever appropriate. I believe we should institute a top-down review of all federal property, including land, to help determine what should stay in the federal government’s purview and what should be returned back to states and localities."

Lucky for me I think his economic policy is as awful as his (erroneous) stance on public land, so I feel no dissonance over not voting for him.

BHA put out the results of the Reno Gazette-Journal inquires too all the candidates here.

 

[Tuscor]

There's only one way to do that, and that's by electing a conservative who then appoints another conservative Supreme Court Justice that gets appointed. And even then it's no guarantee given what we have on the rest of the court. But hopefully they will also have the chance to appoint one or two others during this next term as well.

I'm not confident that Trump would nominate the right Justice, and if anyone on the left side gets in........the Constitution and our country is absolutely doomed. Actually the country is doomed either way.......just look around at the popular beliefs, thinking, and poor ideals that have overtaken the country in the last 20 years. THAT's becoming our norm. Hard to combat that when it's like a plague running rampant.

The only thing that separates us from, and makes us different than the rest of the world.........is our Constitution and the adherence to it. Without that, we ARE the rest of the world. I just can't figure out why so many people want to be like the rest of the world. Dare to be different.

Just for the record, large parts of the rest of the world are actually okay... they're damn fine in fact!