I've come to view him as an ass. A horse's ass.
Posted on 07/02/2016 1:41:21 PM PDT by Innovative
state lawmakers foolishly giving up their voices in Congress by ratifying that amendment.You couldn't be more wrong or stupid if you think state lawmakers don't have a voice in Congress.
Why would I want a state legislator picking and choosing THEIR favorite crony to represent ME?...
Just who or better yet WHAT do you think the (political) chosen one is going to represent numbskull?
Mee-sa gonna vote my conscience. Mee-sa gonna stop that wicked Trump. Senator Piginapantsuit will save-a the Republic!
Know your delegates and “get in their faces.”
There you go!! Righto righto
Replace them
“Rigged elections”
Not rigged, pointless.
If Delegates can vote however they want without regard to the primary then why have a primary? There will be literal blood on the streets of Cleveland if this happens.
With all due respect lewislynn, please note the following.
A previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clariified that Congress is prohibited from appropriating taxes in the name of state power issues, essentially any issue that Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Given Congress’s limited power to appropriate taxes, note that one of the very few powers that the Founding States actually delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, to regulate, tax and spend for where domestic policy is concerned is to run the US Mail Service (1.8.7).
So why should state lawmakers have to go to Congress for federal funding for many things that don’t have anything to do with the US Mail Service since the Gibbons justices had clarified that Congress has very little constitutional authority to appropriate taxes for anything other than the US Mail Service where domestic policy is concerned?
In other words, most federal domestic spending is arguably state revenues that the corrupt feds have stolen from the states by means of unconstitutonal federal taxes.
The bottom line is that the states don’t need an unconstitutional middleman telling them how to spend state revenues that shouldn’t have left a given state in the first place.
” GET ‘EM OUTTA HERE” !!!
The fact that they have to make sure it doesn’t happen is the problem. Glad they’re making sure it doesn’t but still....
I agree.
A couple Billion reasons why they have them.
The MSM loves writing all this anti-Trump crap.
Lyn’ Ted and his scheming followers are determined to elect Clinton. These “conservative purists” are anything but. They seem to forget the Constitution, supporting a Natural Born Canadian. They seem to overlook that Cruz lied about being prepared to support the nominee. They lied, themselves, to become Trump delegates. Now, their out to undermine Trump. Aside from embarrass themselves and the party, who do they propose in place of Trump? Lyn’ Ted?! Seriously?! Do they not recognize that he, Fiorina, and Beck were thoroughly defeated and rejected? What miracle can he perform now? Give Clinton a real landslide victory? Wow.
“Lyn’ Ted and his scheming followers are determined to elect Clinton. “
You nailed it! A very logical, excellent explanation in your post.
Because Cruz is one of those guys who likes to burn the house down if he does not bet his way.
The states can't dictate how delegates are bound. From Wisconsin:
(b) Wisconsin's asserted compelling interests in preserving the overall integrity of the electoral process, providing secrecy of the ballot, increasing voter participation in primaries, and preventing harassment of voters, go to the conduct of the open Presidential preference primary, not to the imposition of voting requirements upon those who, in a separate process, are eventually selected as delegates. Therefore, such asserted interests do not justify the State's substantial intrusion into the associational freedom of members of the National Party.
Pond scum delegate.
This type of lawsuit gets complicated. Essentially the plaintiff is arguing for his “individual rights” vs an organization’s rights. Organizations do not have first amendment rights that are easily definable.
I would guess that the party will be able to do an end run around this while still honoring his right to vote.
The twit can vote his conscience - at the polls like everyone else. As a delegate he assumed another set of duties...
You're right - Cruz could probably lay it to rest but I fear he's so far gone that he actually has wet dreams about a coup at the convention and everyone kneeling to "The Cruz" in adoration.
Petty, spiteful people tend to have such fantasies.
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.