This is Ted Cruz's Plan For the Supreme Court

Well, that is BS. The Constitution is not clearly defined. If it was, we would not been arguing about what this passage means or that clause means for the past 220 years or so.

- - - Updated - - -

Um that is what happens in divorce primarily. If you divorce someone, you split up assets and divide property and rights to that property.

 

No, there are not. Some documents argue for certain ideas, phrases, motifs, etc in the Federalist papers and there are House and Senate notes on the meaning of proposed and passed amendments, but none of that matters once the amendment is passed and different situations apply that were not thought of when the amendment was proposed and passed.

A perfect example is the 14th amendment. At that time, there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant. There was no such thing legally as an inadmissible alien. Thus the amendment, primarily based on African Americans disenfranchisement after the Civil War, was applied as the situations changed. Thus, it is not as clear as one might think as being upon the jurisdiction of the United States of any person born within the United States.

 

He would need more than coaching to change his appeal if he ever believed he will get elected into the Presidency.

 

Avoiding a contortion of meaning going with an Occam's Razor approach is not political.

- - - Updated - - -

Unfortunately, socially liberal is a misnomer in the US. The US tag "socially liberal" is a mere disguise for authoritarian.

- - - Updated - - -

Divorce is much like a dissolved partnership, but I was referring to the many social engineering schemes that the government has built around marriage.

 

Perfect example of politicizing an interpretation of the constitution as opposed to adhering to the original intent that can be easily interpreted from notes of the Authors.

 

Can you please explain? Social liberals want MORE freedom...

 

Cruz and those like him need to be thoroughly thwarted at every turn, they are pure poison

 

Obama, Hillary, Sanders, and those like them need to be thoroughly thwarted at every turn, they are pure evil.

- - - Updated - - -

No, it is clearly defined.

It's that there are people like you who hate it and want to change it.

 

seems you wear grey to my blue, you deservedly lost that one as well

 

I think Cruz will nominate Mike Lee to the Court if he is President. That's always been the rumor.

 

I didn't lose anything.

I'm a winner!

 

You are asking to separate something that cannot be separated. Politics is always going to be involved in one form or another.

What social engineering schemes. Government is not going to get in the way between an 90 year old billionaire and a 25 year old actress. They are not going to be involved between two men marrying or two women marrying. And they are not going to get involved when a Chinese woman marries a Japanese man.

 

As Scalia has stated, the Constitution is designed to impede change, but not avoid change altogether. Does he hate the Constitution?

However, I have warned you about the name calling. If you want to challenge me on my belief of the Constitution, you can do that under trial by combat. Do you accept the challenge?

 

"Name calling?"

What "name calling?"

 

No, they just want the exercise of force. They are no more tolerant than the other labeled groups.

 

No, but your tax code changes when filling as married, your spouse can be covered on your insurance, married couples are considered first in state adoptions, etc.

 

Yes and no depending on which filing status you choose and what your income you are required to report with which deductions, and credits you are eligible for. Remember, the standard deduction is now the same between single and married filing separately.

 

You didn't give any reason why government should be using marriage to influence societal decisions.

 

that is not influencing the decision of which filing status to choose. I have audited persons who have filed jointly but were never married at all nor met the definition of common law marriage. I have heard tax preparers tell people that because they were married in December of that year that they should not file jointly but as single persons because they are not married for the whole year.

The point is that no matter which filing status is chosen, most people are not going to chose the filing status are not being influenced by government policy.

 

OK, why does government recognize marriage?

 

to determine which tentative tax rate to use based on the given taxable income after deductions and exemptions. But the irony is that the government does not recognize a marriage between a us person and a nonresident alien for tax purposes.

BTW, the code does have regulations on how to divide expenses based on cohabitation and similar circumstances for most of the deductions and credits.

 

Exactly, there is absolutely zero reason for marriage and government to be intertwined.

 

that is not being intertwined though.

 

Given the latest polls out of Iowa....as well as NH, SC, Nevada, Florida, etc....

isn't this OP going to be rather embarrassing if Cruz loses primary after primary in the next 5 weeks?

 

you do know the plurality of the country calls them serves conservatives they out number ones calling them selves liberal almost two to one
and when you break down the issues and poll the conservative platform on those issues compared to the liberal platform on those same issues the conservative platform wins on the vast majority of those issues