Ted Cruz – The 21st Century Thomas Jefferson

by: the Common Constitutionalist

I think it was the late Sen. Arlen Specter who said, I didn’t leave the Republican Party – the Republican Party left me. Well, Arlen was wrong – he abandoned his principles and left the Republican Party. And that’s saying something, considering the state of the Republican Party.

Anyway, after Ted Cruz proposed retention elections for the Supreme Court, some big-time lawyers have come out against him, effectively saying that Cruz has gone off the reservation. To this I say, Ted Cruz didn’t leave the Supreme Court – the Supreme Court left him – and all of us.

That well-known right-wing journal, Salon.com , writes that, “Conservative attorney and prominent gay rights activist Ted Olson took a swipe at Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz, saying the freshman senator had abandoned a fundamental understanding of the Constitution suggested a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage in the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision in favor of marriage equality.”

First: How can anyone be a “conservative attorney” and a “gay rights activist” at the same time? Second: how is proposing an amendment “abandoning a fundamental understanding of the Constitution?” Isn’t that what the amendment process is for? Is that not supposed to be one of only two ways to modify the Constitution?

Meanwhile, the Washington Post weighed in saying that Cruz should know better, being that, “Sen. Ted Cruz spent his years at Harvard Law school working to secure a Supreme Court clerkship and then made his name as a lawyer by arguing in front of the body nine times.”

They go on to accuse Cruz of suggesting such a thing is just a way of “seeking support from the right wing of his party.” Well that’s funny, because Ted Cruz is the right wing of the party! read more

Will a Trans Military Satisfy the Left?

by: the Common Constitutionalist

The left will never be satisfied. No matter how many times conservatives, the religious, and others compromised, hoping this will finally satisfy the left, it will never be enough.

The radical left, a tiny but obnoxiously loud minority is now evidently dictating policy for the entire country. And as I stated – no matter how much we give them, it will never be enough.

Now that homosexuals have been given the right to wed countrywide by five of the nine Olympians, I’m sure many on the right thought to themselves – well – glad that’s over with. At least we don’t have to fight over that anymore. Maybe the left will finally take a break and let us be for a while. Well – think again.

Right on cue, as if some wacky leftist think tank has a check list of demands, and they’re just ticking them off one by one, the issue of transgenders in the military is popping up again.

Homosexuals in the military. Repeal don’t ask don’t tell – check.

Homosexual marriage in all 50 states and the known galaxies – check. read more

Podcast – The Runaway Supreme Court – Everything Confederate Must Go

In this episode I discuss the ultimate authority of a runaway judiciary – the Supreme Court and how they now believe they have the full authority to legislate from the bench – rewrite laws. It all goes back to Marbury v Madison – judicial review. Thomas Jefferson had a few choice words on that. And everything Confederate must go. It’s a Confederate moving sale and it’s all being moved to dustbin of history. read more

Obamacare Is Saved Again – Next up – Crony Corporatism

by: the Common Constitutionalist

The ruling is in and the debates have begun. It’s a great day for the left. It’s a great day for both parties. Democrats got what they wanted and Republicans now do not have to legislate. It’s a win-win.

But at least some on the right aren’t happy. Judge Andrew Napolitano’s reaction on Fox News  was stunned amazement. “What [Roberts] did was to suggest that plain, ordinary English words, which are not ambiguous in their meaning, somehow to six of the justices in the majority are ambiguous and therefore they can interpret them however they want,” said Napolitano.

“If they had followed the law, this would’ve been a very simple case. The language in the statute was very clear – and if they had interpreted the language the way it was written, the government would have lost,” said Heritage Foundations  Hans von Spakovsky.

Twila Brase of the Citizens Council for Health Freedom said that “Without the rule of law, it becomes the rule of power – all up to interpretation. Claims of intent and outside interpretations of intent will now rule, not the actual words written in the law. When we start allowing the loose interpretation of law based on after-the-fact claims of intent, the foundation of the rule of law crumbles.”

There are many more losers than winners that will come from this decision. Obviously we conservatives, who have been warning of the pitfalls lost. The American people are huge losers as they will see care decline and prices skyrocket. The rule of law lost and certainly the Constitution. We voters also lost, for its apparent that no other branch of government will stand up and challenge the black robed oligarchs. read more

A New FHA – The Federal Hiring Administration

by: the Common Constitutionalist

You may have heard about the 8-1 Supreme Court decision regarding a discrimination lawsuit brought by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of Samantha Elauf against Abercrombie and Fitch stores.

Ms. Elauf is a Muslim who wears a Hijab, a black headscarf, which A & F said would clash with the companies “Look Policy,” and thus did not hire her.

In 2013 the retailer confirmed to Business Insider  that it doesn’t sell black clothing and “discourages its employees from wearing black.” It’s evidently well-known throughout A & F that CEO Michael Jeffries doesn’t care for black.

“Mike hates the color, and so we’re not supposed to wear it at work,” an anonymous employee told Business Insider.

A statement provided by the company read: “Abercrombie & Fitch does not sell black clothing and discourages wearing it at our home office and in our stores, because we are a casual lifestyle brand and feel black clothing is formal. We have nothing against black clothing and feel it is perfectly appropriate for things like tuxedos.”

Yesterday, the New York Times  reported that “Justice Scalia, writing for seven justices, said Ms. Elauf did not have to make a specific request for a religious accommodation to obtain relief under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits religious discrimination in hiring.” read more

Black Lives Don’t Matter – But White Women Do

by: the Common Constitutionalist

These days it’s hard to count on anything or anyone to be consistent, so when I look for such a constant, I turned to ThinkProgress – yes ThinkProgress.

I turn to ThinkProgress to be consistently wrong on every issue. Their latest post is no exception, as they gleefully report on some establishment Republican women whining about a House bill to limit abortions.

Ellmers

Rep. Renee Ellmers

Tara Culp-Ressler writes: “The GOP controlled House will vote on a proposed 20 week abortion ban next Thursday – the 42nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court case that legalized abortion throughout the United States. The legislation has passed the House for the past two years and was expected to have broad support in the 114th Congress, particularly as Republicans have set their sights on later abortions as an area where they believe they can advance their agenda.”

Oh look – another leftist woman with a hyphenated name. Shocker!

Ressler reports that “a group of GOP women led by Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-NC) have started pushing back against the legislation, expressing concerns during a closed-door meeting of House Republicans. Ellmers reportedly said she is worried that even voting on the 20 week ban will alienate young female voters, urging her colleagues ‘to be smart about how were moving forward’.” read more