tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post3460578211380027515..comments2024-03-06T06:34:42.881-05:00Comments on EconoSpeak: Ted Cruz's Mendacity and Calumny are BreathtakingUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-18876396458658984462016-02-17T18:02:20.041-05:002016-02-17T18:02:20.041-05:00Keep your god in your heart rather than wear god o...Keep your god in your heart rather than wear god on your shirt sleeve.Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12971442888151627894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-10083594428345634612016-02-16T17:05:03.604-05:002016-02-16T17:05:03.604-05:00"...a violation of the separation of church a..."...a violation of the separation of church and state."<br /><br />So the lower court ruled -- a ruling that was NOT appealed to the Supreme Court. <br /><br />But Salazar v. Buono was mired in technicalities. It was about a way around the establishment clause by conveying the land with the cross to the VFW.<br /><br />Cruz's slander is an example of how much "gratitude" one can expect by trying to accommodate the politico-religious right. They don't want to be tolerated. They want to tyrannize.Sandwichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159060882083015637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-21164729858376932252016-02-16T15:19:24.509-05:002016-02-16T15:19:24.509-05:00Of course nobody has ever asked to have "cros...Of course nobody has ever asked to have "crosses and stars of David sandblasted off of the tombstones of our fallen veterans," since individual tombstones are a matter for the families of the dead to decide on. But a large cross on public land as a memorial to a group of veterans of mixed (and, in some cases, no) religion is a violation of the separation of church and state. Kagan's position was absolutely wrong, though sadly just one example of Obama's all-too-frequent abandonment of the wall of separation, e.g. his continued use of federal support of faith-based organizations that are allowed to discriminate in hiring. <br />https://www.au.org/church-state/october-2015-church-state/au-bulletin/obama-administration-issues-faith-basedBob Michaelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14772891797480339702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-88667877457276189742016-02-15T19:45:05.371-05:002016-02-15T19:45:05.371-05:00Cruz seems a bit fuzzy in regards to his interpret...Cruz seems a bit fuzzy in regards to his interpretation of the advise and consent role of the Senate concerning appointments by the President. The President's role is to nominate a potential appointee. The Senate's role is to then review the nomination and consent to the appointment or then deal with an alternative Presidential nomination. In Federalist #76 Hamilton makes the "original" intent of the Article dealing with appointments clear. The Article itself is not ambiguous regarding the two roles to be played by the President, to nominate for appointment, and the Senate, to advise and consent to the appointment. <br /><br />"THE President is "to nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States whose appointments are not otherwise provided for in the Constitution. But the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper, in the President alone, or in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments. The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies which may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session."Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12971442888151627894noreply@blogger.com