Posted on 05/19/2007 1:04:07 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
When the subject is constitutional law, I always encourage people to read the documents for themselves.
John / Billybob
That’s interesting. Rudy owns Texas, Florida, California, Carolina, New York, Ohio and Penn, while Romney has NH and Iowa.
What this really tells me is that McCain is in huge trouble. And Rudy can take Romney out within a week of the early primaries.
I always enjoy your posts on the SCOTUS since you have direct experience before the court.
Yeah, it isn't exactly pretty. In the more recent polls McCain is pulling closer to Rudy (see the link that I also listed). For example, in California and Texas, Rudy leads only by 3% and 5% and those leads are shrinking. But in other States Rudy still has 10 point or larger leads. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, doesn't appear to be making very large gains.
But putting Stare Decicis ahead of a literal reading of the Constitution is not a strict constructionist/originalist position (contrary to Giuliani’s claims).
My real problem with Giuliani is that he has absolutely no concept or respect for what the Constitution and our founding documents mean and how work. He doesn’t even understand Constitution 101. That makes any Giuliani statement related to the Constitution unreliable.
Even if your map were correct, Rudy can’t win without social conservatives and constitutionalists. He needs to be nudged, or swift-boated away, for the good of the party.
That’s assuming that the Roe v. Wade had a constititutional basis - which I don’t believe it does. Bad law is bad law.
I’d expect Rudy to poll well in California, or most traditional blue/purple states. Ohio and Penn are not surprising.
But for him to hold down Texas, Florida and the Carolina’s, especially at the expense of McCain, suggests the latter really has nowhere to go. He’s had eight years to mend fences in South Carolina, for instance.
Its still early, but its later than it used to be.
Rudy’s toast, along with McCain and the rest of the declared field. Fred Thompson’s extremely effective use of the internet the day of the last debate sealed the deal.
The Electoral College was created for the sole purpose of having the Electors exercise their discretion in voting for President (and Vice President). The language of the Constitution about the College has not changed from then to now, except for the differentiation between President and Vice President.
In the meantime, most states have made it a felony, and an automatic resignation, for any Elector to attempt to vote differently than he was pledged, when elected. The whole concept of the Electoral College has been turned on its head. Still, I guarantee that any constitutional challenge to this change will fail -- because it has been too long, more than two centuries, since the plain language of the constitution was first violated (in the election of John Adams, as the second President).
Does that example make sense?
Congressman Billybob
1. Who are “you people”?
2. Is “intellectually facile rational” a compliment or a criticism?
3. I am not a Guiliani supporter.
4. I am a lawyer interested in Constitutional law.
5. Your main point is you don’t like the fact Rudy is for legal abortion. I conceded that many wouldn't’t like that position in my comment.
6. So other than being angry, what’s your point?
Buy Benito was mayor during 9/11. Doesn’t that make him infallible?
How do you even know that? He has absolutely ZERO foreign policy experience and is on the payroll of the Saudi Government.
Rudy is an all-around sh*tbag -- he total package.
With a liberal republican in there, like WE DO NOW, the GOP will just roll over for the president.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.