We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

A good day in Iowa

There were six coin tosses in Iowa last night – to determine contested delegates in various parts of Iowa.

And Hillary Clinton’s people won all of them. Against the rather stupid socialist from Vermont – and his innocent-minded helpers (who do not seem to understand what sort of people they are dealing with).

Hillary Clinton reminds me of David Hume’s picture of a human being – a creature (according to Hume) whose passions always reduce reason to a “slave” (Hume’s fellow determinist Martin Luther used the word “whore” rather than “slave”). Mrs Clinton appears to have no conscience – no “moral sense” or “moral reason”. And neither do her servants. At least not about big things – such as, when Secretary of State, selling American influence (and secrets – who cares about dead intelligence officers?) for cash for the Clinton Foundation – a “charity” piggy bank for the family and associates of Mrs Clinton. And not about small things – such as Iowa Caucus coin tosses.

There is a seamless vileness about Hillary Clinton – if there is a straight way of doing something (big or small) and a crooked way Mr Clinton will always choose the crooked way – on principle.

“What do you mean I wiped the e-mails on my sever? Do you mean with a cloth or something?”

On the Republican side the three leading candidate were as follows:

The person who came third (Marco “Fox News” Rubio) basically argued that government had only got too big in the “last seven years” – and that taxation and government spending levels were about right under President Bush.

The person who came second (Donald “Juan Peron” Trump) argued that a “better manager” was needed for an even bigger government.

And the person who actually won the Iowa Caucus argued that government was much too big, and had been for a very long time. And that, for a start, 5 Federal Government Departments and 25 Federal Government Agencies should be abolished.

For example all energy subsidies should be abolished – including “mandates” for ethanol. To argue this in IOWA was supposed to be the kiss of death.

However, Senator Ted Cruz won anyway – which I did not expect.

Senator Cruz refused to give in or to sell out.

No doubt the establishment will continue to try and undermine Ted Cruz – seeking a return to the big government “Compassionate Conservatism” of President Bush.

But Iowa was a victory – whatever comes after.

A good day.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on TumblrShare on RedditShare on Google+Share on VKEmail this to someone

97 comments to A good day in Iowa

  • Shlomo Maistre

    “And the person who actually won the Iowa Caucus argued that government was much too big, and had been for a very long time. And that, for a start, 5 Federal Government Departments and 25 Federal Government Agencies should be abolished.

    […]

    But Iowa was a victory – whatever comes after.”

    The person who won the vast majority of delegates in Iowa in the GOP 2012 caucus likewise called for the abolition of many government agencies and federal departments. It did not matter then; it does not matter now. The result of that election was President Barack Obama; the result of this election will be a President who does not fundamentally alter the path America has been on for decades (probably a certain Hillary Clinton).

  • mike

    “It did not matter then; it does not matter now.”

    Agreed. Wake me up when it’s all over, there are more important things to do.

  • Cristina

    Shlomo Maistre, right again.

  • Shlomo Maistre, right again.

    I find persistent pessimists as pointless as persistent optimists. Shlomo Maistre might be right but then occasionally so is a stopped clock.

  • Shlomo Maistre

    Pro-small government electoral victories do not render lasting, material pro-small government policy changes. See the Reagan Revolution, Contract with America and Tea Party movement for recent examples.

    The stopped clock is he who views pro-small government electoral victories as meaningful despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I merely observe reality.

    As far as being pointless, the term denotes futility towards achieving a particular goal. Consistent pessimism may not be agreeable to those who wish to be happy but for those of us who wish to see reality as it is it is sometimes entirely warranted.

  • Cristina

    Perry, what do you find more annoying, the fact itself or that Shlomo mentioned it? 🙂

  • The problem with Evolution is that it’s too slow.

    And a “liberal” will also morally condemn you for having a moral standard.

  • llamas

    Shlomo Maistre is right, of course – the abolition of entire departments and agencies will never get past the Congress. Far too many votes at stake.

    However, Cruz’s statements about how he would like to do this are at least an indicator of his thinking. And, if elected, he would have considerable power as Chief Executive to severely reduce the activities of many of these agencies. President Obama has already shown how far he is prepared to push executive power to obtain the outcomes he likes – while I disapprove strongly of the process, if this is the way it’s going to be, I’m certainly not going to get all high-principled and say that a President Cruz should not do the same. It’s your basic Alinsky approach – use their own weapons against them, and dare them to resist. With a Republican Congress, I could well see how he could significantly reduce the spread of the Federal Leviathan, and do some real good eg in reorganizing the tax code.

    It’s now been pointed out twice today, what I pointed out weeks ago, that Cruz was campaigning in Iowa as the only serious candidate of any party to unequivocal reject the Federal ethanol mandate, long assumed to be political suicide there. He’s obviously helped out by historic low gas prices, which help to point out the ridiculously-high costs of ethanol. When E85 costs (essentially) the same as regular gas, even the dumbest customer can figure out that, at 30% worse gas mileage, somehow, it doesn’t quite make sense.

    Anyway, I digress – his firm and unwavering opposition to the ethanol mandate, in a state where it is calculated to do him the most electoral damage, says a lot about his adherence to principle. The fact that he won, in spite of it, say more about his electability. Maybe there’s some hope.

    llater,

    llamas

  • AngryTory

    It’s not just about Congress. The next president will be able to appoint a bunch of justices. Cruz would appoint so-called “Lochner” judges who understand that welfare is unconstitutional. That’s what makes the government go away: with that sort of ruling, rebuilding the welfare state will be utterly impossible.

    Note that both the Liberty Amendments and Greg Abbott’s proposed amendments will likewise end welfare.

  • Perry, what do you find more annoying, the fact itself or that Shlomo mentioned it?

    The fact that pessimism, like most defeatism, is actually intellectually flabby and not even of any practical value either. Having grown up in the 1970’s myself, I find such pessimism irrational. Moreover as he has an axe to grind… monarchy? Seriously… I find it a waste of comment space. Nothing lasts forever, and that applies to the perpetually growing state too.

  • Mary Contrary

    Even if Shlomo Maistre were completely right (and I do not think he is; I agree with llamas), the mere fact that Cruz could Iowa win has some significance. The so-called Progressives win by crushing the spirit of liberty, the will to resist and the hope and desire for less government. Cruz’s victory in Iowa says the spirit of American freedom is not entirely extinguished yet; if he wins the candidacy it will show that that spirit still has vigour, and if he wins the Presidency, that it burns brightly in many a heart, whatever the media may portray.

    That proof that Americans reject the Progressive ideology, as much as whatever good Cruz might do with the Presidency, gives hope for recovery from the present malaise. Or if not even that, at least hope that the decline will be slower and less smooth than anticipated.

    All that is needed for evil to triumph is that good men give up hope.

  • mojo

    Shlomo may be right, it mat be too late, the momentum has built for decades, but I hope he’s not. Things will go on as they have, until they can’t. Then there will be a civil war, and lots of people will die.

    Which is the only certainty in any war.

    What comes out the other side? Unpredictable, but unlikely to be better.

    Me: I will not vote for Hillary Clinton. Period.

  • mojo

    PS: “This is LIBERTY HALL. You can spit on the mat and call the cat a bastard.”

  • Paul Marks

    If someone thinks that evil is going to win, but intends to work against it to the bitter end (if bitter it must be) that is one thing.

    The problem (or one of the many problems) with SM is that he has no intention of opposing the evil at all. If he was in Iowa (and a citizen) and only a few feet from the place a Caucus was taking place – he would not go. And if was outside a polling place in New Hampshire – he would not vote.

    I apologise if I have misjudged him. But my judgement is that he just wants some sort of dictatorship – perhaps like Louis XIV (the “Sun King”) of France, or Peter “The Great” of Russia, or Frederick “The Great” of Prussia

    Still back to the actual post.

    Ted Cruz is clearly the candidate(with a chance) with the record of opposing big government and supporting the a move back towards the Constitution of the United States – he is clearly the candidate to support.

    “He can not win Paul” – perhaps not, but that is no excuse not to support him.

    I am more interested that none of the comments noted that Mrs Clinton winning six (out of six) coin tosses is odds of 64 to 1 against.

    Lucky Hillary is a marvel!

    She would make a fortune at any casino.

    Just as she did in her one trade in cattle futures.

    Go in (with no knowledge or experience) and make a fortune.

    Every day-traders dream.

  • Shlomo Maistre

    “The so-called Progressives win by crushing the spirit of liberty, the will to resist and the hope and desire for less government.”

    Precisely the opposite is true. Progressives’ continuous victories are enabled in part by virtue of conservatives/classical liberals/libertarians/constitutionalists’ misguided perception of light at the end of the tunnel.

    Insofar as the pro-smaller government constituency genuinely gives up, the Left is less able to mask the charade of modern democratic governance as anything other than the gradual destruction of social order that it is.

    Democracy is a process of facilitating left wing policies. Resisting left wing policies in democracy delays the inevitable; withdrawing from the system accelerates the inevitable.

  • Paul Marks

    In the unlikely event I even meet Hillary Clinton (say after death when we are both waiting to be judged for our sins) I will ask her the following question……..

    “If you had the choice of winning straight or winning crooked – would you actually prefer to win something the crooked way?”

    I think that in certain circumstances (again say we were both dead and waiting on the “other side”) I might actually get an honest answer.

    Which would be “I prefer to do things the crooked way – even if the straight way is less difficult”.

    The soul of a natural grifter.

  • Progressives’ continuous victories are…

    You must be very young. Most leftists I read, particularly the ones who remember the “good old days”, have been in despair for years and they are right to be.

  • Paul Marks

    Thank you S.M.

    First for deliberately confusing “democracy” with a Constitutional Republic – you know the difference, you do not have to listen to any Ted Cruz speeches to know it, you have been told often enough.

    As for the idea that the victory of evil is “inevitable” – such a council of despair might be from the mouth of Satan himself.

    And thank you for openly admitting that your advice is “give up”.

    “give up” is your advice.

    Which would make the victory of evil certain indeed.

    As you know.

  • “For myself, I am an optimist – it does not seem to be much use being anything else” Churchill.

  • Cristina

    Perry, it would be dishonest of me not to say that this is also my “axe to grind”, as you said. I don’t agree with Shlomo Maistre because of that, though. The state still has room to growth and it will use it. No President will stop the machine.
    I’d like to share Mary’s hope.
    “[…] perhaps like Louis XIV (the “Sun King”) of France, or Peter “The Great” of Russia, or Frederick “The Great” of Prussia”
    Really? I’m not sure. 🙂
    I don’t vote because I don’t believe in democracy.

  • Paul Marks

    I am a pessimist Niall – indeed I suffer from depression.

    However, I believe in fighting to the end – if bitter it must be.

    For example, I believe the Euros will win the referendum – but that does not stop me having “Vote Leave” posters on my windows – and it does not stop me knocking on doors (as I did last Saturday) for “Go” the grass roots anti E.U. campaign.

    If we lose we lose – but I will do all I can.

    And if I was an American citizen I would be fighting to the end for Ted Cruz.

    Pessimism, indeed depression, is no excuse for not doing one’s duty.

    If one is really unable to do one’s duty then only one honourable course remains.

    To be one’s own executioner.

    As I would have asked General Haig after July 1st 1916.

    “Why are you not dead?”

  • Cristina

    Democracy is the evil, Paul. Giving up on democracy is the opposite of evil. It’s the only way to unmask the evil, to defeat it

  • CaptDMO

    Llamas-“… the abolition of entire departments and agencies will never get past the Congress.”
    Who said anything about Congress? A simple “interpretation” from the Dept. of Justice that “Nah, we won’t assume, or allow, prosecution for the accidental falling out of windows of VERY well appointed Gub’mint office buildings” will do. (I think the Russians had a word for that…reset…overcharge…or something)
    I’m sure OSHA might look into that however. Mandatory safety harness’, fall/shock arresters, and mandatory 40 hour “educational” course, for appointed “executive” office workplace?
    Somebody (?)ran an a (questionable validity) poll citing an implied voluntary exodus from gub’mint jobs
    if Mr. Trump were elected President. Many in MY sphere of influence grunted “That’s a good start…”(old lawyer joke)

  • Resident Alien

    I’m slowly coming round to Cruz. He first appeared too socially conservative but it seems this is at least partially an act. It is entirely possible that he can win the general election. But, he will inevitably face a legal challenge about his status as a natural born citizen … and Hillary might get arrested. We have an interesting year ahead of us, when was the last time a nominee was actually decided at the convention?

  • Steve D

    Senator Ted Cruz won anyway – which I did not expect.

    You need to pay more attention to the polls, then.
    But wow. The guy makes Ronald Reagan look like a liberal.

    ‘he will inevitably face a legal challenge about his status as a natural born citizen’

    He inherited his citizenship from his mother, which I believe is the definition of a natural born citizen. Besides, if the state legislatures (and later congress) certify him the issue is settled.

  • Laird

    Cristina, democracy is indeed evil. But voting is not synonymous with democracy. We in the US live in a constitutional republic (at least in theory). Voting is the means by which we select our representatives to manage that republic. You can entirely plausibly argue that voting is pointless. You can even argue that it confers unwarranted legitimacy on the schemes of the victors. Or, like Shlomo, you can argue that even a constitutional republic is an inferior form of government which should be replaced by an hereditary monarchy, in which case there would be no voting at all. But I do not accept your assertion that voting, of itself, is evil, or is solely the hallmark of a democracy.

  • Rob Fisher

    Paul, I noticed the coin toss thing. And it strikes me as suspicious. Oddly enough I have just read this: http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/n8h/whats_wrong_with_this_picture/

    I think the upshot is that the question is: would you assign more than 1 in 36 to Pr(there was some sort of bias in those coin tosses)?

  • Shlomo Maistre

    “As for the idea that the victory of evil is “inevitable” – such a council of despair might be from the mouth of Satan himself.

    And thank you for openly admitting that your advice is “give up”.

    “give up” is your advice.”

    My advice is to follow tianming – an idea that is ten times older than American democracy and far more proven by experience. Power flows to the worthy.

    History teaches us that the growth of government in democracy is not substantially stymied by the ballot box and that as a given democracy falls into permanent stasis it is replaced by a new apparatus controlled generally by those worthy of possessing power.

    To be worthy is my advice.

    As for the inevitable triumph of evil – I’ll note that time itself degrades all things – even monarchy. Each successive monarchy is somehow more degraded in form than those that preceded it and all monarchies are infinitely degraded as compared to the original and everlasting monarchy that is His kingdom.

  • If Cruz wins, we Texans are gonna need to find a new Senator, damn it. I’m a HUGE Cruz supporter, always have been. He was the first of the “Tea Party senators” elected when the TP became a factor in U.S. politics.

    While I share Shlomo’s pessimism sometimes, I refuse to submit. One thing I do know: the political establishment might hate Trump, but they fear Cruz because unlike the Donald, Cruz doesn’t make deals. And Cruz is implacably opposed to un-Constitutional governance practices, so he’ll do things like rescind previous executive orders, and instruct government departments to eliminate 50% of their regulations — which, as Chief Executive, he has the Constitutional authority to order.

    Here’s an example: the Department of the Environment is a Cabinet-level department only because it was made thus through an executive order by Jimmy Carter. Ted Cruz could rescind its Cabinet status by rescinding Carter’s EO — which he can do, Constitutionally speaking — which would automatically result in budget cuts because the DoE would legally have to be treated with a different budget authorization process by Congress. It’s also the way you can reduce staffing levels — if the department needs 25 agents to enforce Regulation #2.350 and Regulation #2.350 goes away, so does the staffing requirement. (I know, they can’t be fired, but they can be reassigned and their positions never filled. In the end, the result is the same.)

    Here’s the reason why the Establishment fears Cruz: because he CAN effect a huge amount of change, and can do it with all the Constitutional (i.e. legal) protections of his office, which means that they have NO legal recourse to stop him. If any judge saw that Cruz’s Constitutional-based action was, in effect, reversing an earlier extra-Constitutional action, he won’t touch it, let alone reverse it. THAT is why Cruz is feared, because he will be in a position to change the political system — and by the way, as a one-time prosecutor, Cruz’s Justice Department WILL go after lawbreakers (e.g. Hillary Clinton) which is why the Democrat establishment (e.g. the media) is having hysterics about his Iowa victory.

    Expect to hear him being called a Bible-thumper, rightwinger, gun nut and all the little epithets the media can throw at him. This frightens Lefties, but not normal people who live in Flyover Country.

    Whatever happens from now, it’s gonna be fun.

  • thefrollickingmole

    Ill hark back to an example I love to use of the sort of institution you are hoping will be reformed.

    Insider trading, punishable by jail, fines etc, a heinous evil against the free market…unless you are a congresscritter.

    In November of 2011, the TV show 60 Minutes did a big expose on insider trading within Congress. While everyone else is subject to basic insider trading rules, it turned out that members of Congress were exempt from the rules. And, as you would imagine, many in Congress have access to market-moving, non-public information. And they made use of it. To make lots and lots of money. Of course, after that report came out and got lots of attention, Congress had to act, and within months they had passed the STOCK Act with overwhelming support in Congress to make insider trading laws that apply to everyone else finally apply to Congress and Congressional staffers as well.

    that was then, hope and change and all that guff.

    Of course, here we are in 2013 and, lo and behold, it is no longer an election year. And apparently some of the details of the ban on insider trading were beginning to chafe Congressional staffers, who found it hard to pad their income with some friendly trades on insider knowledge.

    So… with very little fanfare, Congress quietly rolled back a big part of the law late last week. Specifically the part that required staffers to post disclosures about their financial transactions, so that the public could make sure there was no insider trading going on. Congress tried to cover up this fairly significant change because they, themselves, claimed that it would pose a “national risk” to have this information public. A national risk to their bank accounts.

    It was such a national risk that Congress did the whole thing quietly, with no debate. The bill was introduced in the Senate on Thursday and quickly voted on late that night when no one was paying attention. Friday afternoon (the best time to sneak through news), the House picked it up by unanimous consent. The House ignored its own promise to give Congress three days to read a bill before holding a vote, because this kind of thing is too important to let anyone read the bill before Congress had to pass it.

    And, of course, yesterday, President Obama signed it into law. Because the best way to rebuild trust in Congress, apparently, is to roll back the fact that people there need to obey the same laws as everyone else. That won’t lead the public to think that Congress is corrupt. No, not at all.

    There are quite a few articles around on how individual pollies have made fortunes out of this, 2 of the worst where Bohner andPpelosi, the 2 ‘leaders” of the house.

  • Cristina

    Laird, I didn’t say that voting is evil. Democracy is evil. Voting is, at most, a futile act of exhibitionism. It’s just another dumb offspring of the Enlightenment.

  • Julie near Chicago

    Paul, a very good posting, thank you. It’s been awhile since we’ve seen one of yours, and that’s a shame. :>)

  • Laird

    Apologies, Cristina, but that’s how I interpreted what you wrote: First, “I don’t vote because I don’t believe in democracy.” Then, “Democracy is the evil.” Seems like the beginnings of a syllogism to me, and I draw what I took to be the implied conclusion.

  • AngryTory

    there will be a civil war, and lots of people will die… Which is the only certainty

    indeed. And the only way liberty will be restored – which is why I remain an optimist!

  • AngryTory

    Progressives’ continuous victories are…

    why they are called “progressives”. From the universal franchise to benefits to the EU to gay marriage to central banking to atheism – things will always inevitably progress from capitalism (the 19C) to socialism (20C with its universal franchise and welfare states) to communism – where we are headed now with the EU, Obamacare, etc.
    This is nothing but Marx’s theory of history

    As to democracy being evil: that should be obvious.

  • Mary Contrary

    AngryTory:

    why they are called “progressives”?

    Because they believe in progressively extending government power and reducing human freedom.

  • Mr Ed

    Well I would think that this piece would make a rather good campaign theme for Senator Cruz, from Handel’s Ode for St Cecilia’s Day, including the words:

    The trumpet’s loud clangour excites us to arms,
    With shrill notes of anger and mortal alarms,
    The double-double-double beat,
    Of the thund’ring drum,
    Cries hark! Hark! Cries hark the foes come!
    Charge! Charge! Charge! Charge!
    ‘Tis too late, ’tis too late to retreat!
    Charge ’tis too late, too late to retreat!

  • AngryTory

    Because they believe in progressively extending government power and reducing human freedom.

    well no, because they actually believe in immediately having government take over everything and everyone.

    It’s because they believe that societies will inevitable “progress”.

    While conservatives believe that societies will inevitably “regress”

  • JohnW

    I hate Cruz – he is a power-luster a phony and a fraud, just check out his flip-flop history on abortion. By what right does anyone claim the power to dispose of the lives of others and to dictate their personal choices?
    Such absence of even a glimmer of principle is typical of a dark-souled beast. Any man who thinks the US Constitution has a religious foundation automatically puts himself beyond the reach of rational argument. Have you ever tried arguing with these smug fools even when confronted with direct evidence of the indisputable consequences of their folly? It’s like arguing with a zombie – that same blank-out expression, that same dead-eyed stare – it is impossible to reason with it and it is a mentality capable of anything.
    Jimmy Carter was bad enough but to support a supposed “intellectual” who shares that view would be a twofold insult to philosophy.
    Cruz is the US equivalent of the Papist Tony Blair – who I denounced and despised even before he became the UK Prime Minister.

    ALL the candidates are awful but Cruz is appalling.

  • Edward

    As to the coin tosses.

    The chance of Hillary winning all six coin tosses was indeed remote – 0.5^6 = 0.015625, or 64:1. However, her chance of winning coin toss #6, having won the previous five, is 0.5. The coins have no memory, especially since they were different coins in different precincts, and the probability of any event occurring when it has already happened, is 1. So the probability of her winning the tosses she’d already won was 1^5 = 1, then 1 x 0.5 = 0.5. Or 2:1.

  • llamas

    Or, put another way – her chance of getting the sequence of results she got from 6 coin tosses – whatever it was – is exactly the same as the chance of getting any of the other possible sequences of 6 coin tosses, which is 1 in 64. Those are not long odds by any means.

    I don’t know what the sequence of coin tosses was, but I guarantee that if you saw the sequence written down, you would find it quite unremarkable, and would readily agree that it appeared quite random. It’s only when the sequence is associated with the result for a given candidate that it appears to our easily-misled human brains to appear suspicious.

    We easily succumb to several fallacious conclusions about random event sequences, generally known as the ‘gambler’s fallacies’. Chief among these is the fallacy that the odds for a given outcome of a single random event (like a coin toss) are somehow affected by the outcomes of prior events.

    FWIW, the longest sequence of ‘winning’ rolls at craps recorded in recent, regulated US casino history is 154, which was performed in Atlantic City in 2009. Sequences of 6, 7, 8 and 9 consecutive winning rolls at craps are so common as to be completely unremarkable. And the odds of rolling a winning combination at craps is less than the 1 in 2 odds of a coin toss. So I have no problem at all believing that 6 separate flips of a coin all favored Mrs Clinton, because it’s a completely unremarkable result.

    llater,

    llamas

  • Edward

    llamas wrote:

    Or, put another way – her chance of getting the sequence of results she got from 6 coin tosses – whatever it was – is exactly the same as the chance of getting any of the other possible sequences of 6 coin tosses, which is 1 in 64. Those are not long odds by any means.

    Exactly, and far more clearly put than I did. The chance of any six-coin toss result is exactly equal. Chance of Hillary winning all six? 64:1. Chance of Hillary and Bernie splitting three each? 64:1. Chance of Bernie taking all six? 64:1. Chance of two to Bernie and four to Hillary, or vice versa? 64:1. Any result’s chance? 64:1. Far too few people understand how mathematics, especially statistics, work. And that fuels conspiracy theories all too often…

  • mojo

    “a dark-souled beast”

    You hardly ever see literal demonization these days. How refreshing.

  • Fraser Orr

    @Edward your math is off I’m afraid. The chance of Hillary and Bernie splitting three each is in fact 31% (20/64) and the chance of Hillary getting 2 and Bernie 4 is 23% (14/64).

  • Cristina

    Laird, they were not needed, but apologies accepted. 🙂

  • Mr Ed

    The chance of Hillary and Bernie splitting three each is in fact 31% (20/64) and the chance of Hillary getting 2 and Bernie 4 is 23% (14/64).

    Er, the concern is that the chance of Bernie getting as much as 1 toss was a big fat 0. 🙂

  • jdm

    Kim du Toit: oh, that was a fun read. I could’a written that myself. Except that I’m from MN.

  • Julie near Chicago

    NPR (National Public Radio — U.S.):

    Coin-Toss Fact Check: No, Coin Flips Did Not Win Iowa For Hillary Clinton


    http://www.npr.org/2016/02/02/465268206/coin-toss-fact-check-no-coin-flips-did-not-win-iowa-for-hillary-clinton?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=politics

  • Julie near Chicago

    Kim: What jdm said! 🙂

  • Mr Ed

    Seconding jdm’s take on Kim’s great post, Senator Cruz is, for the Left, a genuine ‘villain’ to Trump’s pantomime version.

    How long before they start pushing the Donald as one who has ‘grown’ with his campaign? After Super Tuesday?

  • […] an interesting post with some interesting comments, came this one from Mr. du […]

  • AngryTory

    Is it only me that saw that heading and thought “active shooter?”

  • Nicholas (Andy.royd) Gray

    Thefrollickingmole- a sad commentary on affairs. Still, I don’t think that anyone here is shocked at such an outcome, which is why Americans aren’t rebelling against their government. Democracy promises us that we can replace them with new scoundrels next election, so the people are placated. Elections are the opium of the voting class, as Karl Marx should have said.

  • AngryTory

    And if I was an American citizen I would be fighting to the end for Ted Cruz.

    answer me this: how has the incumbent lasted so long?

  • AngryTory

    which is why Americans aren’t rebelling against their government

    Malheur

  • long-lost cousin

    SM-

    I told myself I was going to walk away from this place but I had to come back and ask:

    What is your solution? Do you plan to run around in the woods yelling about Wolverines, see what the front of your gun tastes like, or sign on with the bad guys in hopes that collaborators get treated better?

    Because I gotta be honest: from the perspective that your posts seem to show you to have, it doesn’t look like you leave yourself any other options.

  • Edward

    Fraser Orr wrote:

    Edward your math is off I’m afraid. The chance of Hillary and Bernie splitting three each is in fact 31% (20/64) and the chance of Hillary getting 2 and Bernie 4 is 23% (14/64).

    Yes you are quite correct. In my defence I was thinking of the chance of Hillary winning the first set and Bernie winning the second, so getting the results in sequence, which would be 64:1 as I said. But the sequence doesn’t matter as I stated it, or indeed in the caucus results. So you are indeed correct as to the chances of Hillary or Bernie winning 4 of 6, or 3 of 3. Because the sequence doesn’t matter in that case. I was trying to say statistics are hard to get right, and I guess I’ve just proved that 🙂

  • Mr Ed

    James Earl Carter has told the world all that you need to know about Messrs Trump and Cruz.

    “Ted Cruz is not malleable,”

    Trump has proven already that he’s completely malleable,” Carter says. “I don’t think he has any fixed opinions that he would really go to the White House and fight for.”

  • Paul Marks

    Correct Mr Ed.

    And so is Marco Rubio “malleable”.

    Accept he (and his Fox News friends) call it “cooperation” and “reaching across to the other side”.

    As Antoine Clarke used to tell me – when people compromise with the left they are compromised and the left get what they want.

    The “compromise” becomes about timing – how long it will take for the left to get the “Social Justice” they demand.

    When Senator Rubio talks about the government “helping the people” my heart sinks.

    Although he is just reflecting modern Catholic social teaching.

    At least as the mainstream interpret it.

    There are other interpretations – as Thomas Woods would point out.

  • Cristina

    “When Senator Rubio talks about the government “helping the people” my heart sinks.”
    With very good reason, Paul. This is not the social doctrine of the Catholic Church. This is social engineering from progressives of all stripes, catholics (with lowercase) included.
    The “modern” Catholic social teachings are: respect for the human person, promotion of the family, defense of the individual’s right to own property, the duty to work for the common good through participation and solidarity, the principle of subsidiarity, the recognition of the dignity of work, and the pursuit of peace through the principle of just war.
    Catholicism is very specific, something most people do not understand. Not every opinion, preference, or statement made by a catholic person constitutes Catholic doctrine.

  • Paul Marks

    Cristina – Thomas Woods would agree with you, but would Pope Francis?

    Still it hardly matters now.

    I have shocked by the extreme nature (the constant 24 hour attack) of the Fox News propaganda attack for Senator Rubio and against Senator Cruz.

    People such as “Bernie” Goldberg (I suspect not a Catholic) are determined to force another “electable” candidate on Republicans – as they did in 2008 and 2012.

    Secure the borders (by the way what is a Catholic charity doing implanting Islamic Somalis in Maine?) – no chance.

    Reduce the size of government? Of course not – it must be increased still further…… “training schemes” and so on.

    I do not see how Ted Cruz can survive the Fox News offensive – which, I repeat, is 24 hours a day and fanatical.

  • Cristina

    Paul, as previously said here, Pope Francis is a paladin of Liberation Theology.
    “by the way what is a Catholic charity doing implanting Islamic Somalis in Maine?”
    Rhetorical question, I guess.

  • Julie near Chicago

    Wasn’t it the American Council of Catholic Bishops, or whatever the organization calls itself, that just a few years ago was all for welcoming the illegal immigrants from Mexico, calling for tolerance of them, welcoming of them, trying to make them feel “at home,” etc.? I remember a certain segment of us (including some, maybe many, Catholics) being rather upset at that.

    How times have changed?

  • Cristina

    “How times have changed?”
    For the worse, Julie. To understand the change may be useful to read the Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis by Pope Pius X

  • Shlomo Maistre

    “SM-
    I told myself I was going to walk away from this place but I had to come back and ask:

    What is your solution? Do you plan to run around in the woods yelling about Wolverines, see what the front of your gun tastes like, or sign on with the bad guys in hopes that collaborators get treated better?

    Because I gotta be honest: from the perspective that your posts seem to show you to have, it doesn’t look like you leave yourself any other options.”

    I never said that leftism is a problem – let alone one amenable to a “solution”. I merely observe(d) that left wing policies reliably triumph in democracy.

    If there’s something to be hopeful about, it’s that restoration of more stable forms of government generally occur irrespective of “the people”.

    Fighting leftism only works for the right on a temporary basis – and even then only from an established position of strength.

    Democracy in a certain sense is both a microcosm and an accelerated case of the gradual erosion of order (the eternal law of entropy that is as true in thermodynamics as it is in human relations) that curses the mortal domain by virtue of the original rebellion in Eden.

    And for what it’s worth, celebrating fleeting pro-small government electoral victories such as Ted Cruz’s Iowa victory is a most subtle but essential sort of collaboration with the powers that be for several reasons, including the fact that such celebration further legitimizes the democratic process.

    Hillary 2016!

  • Eric

    by the way what is a Catholic charity doing implanting Islamic Somalis in Maine?

    Money. They get money from from the government for every refugee they settle.

  • AngryTory

    He inherited his citizenship from his mother, which I believe is the definition of a natural born citizen. Besides, if the state legislatures (and later congress) certify him the issue is settled.

    Nope and nope. At the time the Constitution was signed, Citizenship certainly didn’t follow the mother.
    US Citizenship only started coming through the mother quite recently.

    The question is how “natural born citizen” differs from “citizen”. And that will have to go to the court.

  • long-lost cousin

    Nope and nope. At the time the Constitution was signed, Citizenship certainly didn’t follow the mother.
    US Citizenship only started coming through the mother quite recently.

    It was in the Naturalization Act of 1790.

    I never said that leftism is a problem – let alone one amenable to a “solution”. I merely observe(d) that left wing policies reliably triumph in democracy.

    If there’s something to be hopeful about, it’s that restoration of more stable forms of government generally occur irrespective of “the people”.

    So leftism isn’t a problem for you, then?

    Okay. That tells me everything that I need to know about you.

  • Cristina

    “That tells me everything that I need to know about you.” LOL

  • Julie near Chicago

    The Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed on Jan. 29, 1795. See Sec. 4.

    The 1795 Act doesn’t touch upon the “natural born” issue, but only specifies who may be a citizen. However, note this from Sec.3, which refers to children of naturalized parents or foreign-born children of American citizens:

    That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States….

    United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject” (January 29, 1795).

    For carrying into complete effect the power given by the constitution, to establish an uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States:

    SEC.1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on the following conditions, and not otherwise: —

    First. He shall have declared, on oath or affirmation, before the supreme, superior, district, or circuit court of some one of the states, or of the territories northwest or south of the river Ohio, or a circuit or district court of the United States, three years, at least, before his admission, that it was bona fide, his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly, by name, the prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whereof such alien may, at that time, be a citizen or subject.

    Secondly. He shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare on oath or affirmation before some one of the courts aforesaid, that he has resided within the United States, five years at least, and within the state or territory, where such court is at the time held, one year at least; that he will support the constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name, the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject; which proceedings shall be recorded by the clerk of the court.

    Thirdly. The court admitting such alien shall be satisfied that he has resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States five years; and it shall further appear to their satisfaction, that during that time, he has behaved as a man of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same.

    Fourthly. In case the alien applying to be admitted to citizenship shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility, in the kingdom or state from which he came, he shall, in addition to the above requisites, make an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility, in the court to which his application shall be made; which renunciation shall be recorded in the said court.

    SEC. 2. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That any alien now residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States may be admitted to become a citizen on his declaring, on oath or affirmation, in some one of the courts aforesaid, that he has resided two years, at least, within and under the jurisdiction of the same, and one year, at least, within the state or territory where such court is at the time held; that he will support the constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject; and moreover, on its appearing to the satisfaction of the court, that during the said term of two years, he has behaved as a man of good moral character, attached to the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same; and when the alien applying for admission to citizenship, shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility in the kingdom or state from which he came, on his moreover making in the court an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility, before he shall be entitled to such admission; all of which proceedings, required in this proviso to be performed in the court, shall be recorded by the clerk thereof.

    SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.

    SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the Act intituled, “An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed.

    http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html

  • Laird

    The issue of “natural born citizen” is very complicated (much more so that it would appear on the surface), and probably can only be settled by a Supreme Court decision. However, the meaning at the time of ratification of the Constitution appears to follow Calvin’s Case, a decision by Lord Coke in 1608. All persons educated in the law in 1789 were very familiar with Coke’s treatises, including this celebrated (at the time) case, and much of their thinking followed his.

    Calvin’s Case (I’ve provided a link for anyone interested, but be warned: it’s very long and difficult to read) concerned a Scotsman who had acquired land in England. At time English land could only be owned by “natural born citizens” (does that language look familiar?), which did not include Scotsmen. However, in 1603 (or thereabouts; I don’t remember the date) the Scottish king ascended the English throne. Coke’s court concluded that because Calvin owed allegiance, by birth, to King James, upon the latter’s ascention to the English throne Calvin thereupon became a “natural born citizen” of England (as well as of Scotland), and hence could own land there.

    Most people (including most lawyers) think that there are only two types of citizenship: that acquired by birth and that acquired through naturalization, and that this simplistic approach answers the question. Calvin’s case suggests otherwise, and seems to hold that there is a third type called a “natural born citizen”. This is one who, as of his birth, inherently owes allegiance to the king/country and thus automatically acquires citizenship. This requires birth on US soil to (probably) two citizen parents; both elements are required. Ipso facto, anyone who acquires citizenship by operation of some statute is not “natural born”. Persons born abroad to parents who are US citizens only acquire citizenship by operation of a statute (which was only enacted sometime in the 20th century). Under this line of reasoning Ted Cruz is not eligible to be President; and neither was Obama if it could be proved that he was born abroad. Because if Cruz is eligible, despite his Canadian birth, Obama would be too, regardless of where he was born, because it is indisputable that his mother was a US citizen.

    I am actually fairly well persuaded by this argument. However, it is so convoluted and difficult to explain that my guess is that if the courts ever took up the issue they would opt for simplicity and hold that “natural born” merely distinguishes naturalized citizens from birthright citizens, and leave it at that. (Hey, at least that would spare us a President Schwarzenegger!)

  • Julie near Chicago

    Laird: Thank you so much for some support! That’s my understanding also.

    The thing is, back in 2008 there was this big push to say that the thing that made Obama eligible was his U.S. birth. They All Laughed at those of us who said the parentage thing was just as important.

    Now the shoe’s on the other foot. As long as you’ve got a citizen parent, you could be born on Mars and still be eligible. (I have a lovely rant up about this at CountingCats.com.)

    According to Randy Barnett, Laurence Tribe told him that he, Tribe, thinks Cruz is ineligible if you go strictly by the (original) Constitution, because he simply isn’t a natural born citizen.

    Mind you, not being in Trumpmania, I’ll still vote for Cruz, because his plans are the best IMO. But I would like to have a little one-on-one with him. He is VERY confused about the parentship issue. No, Donald’s mother does NOT have to be natural born for Donald to be eligible. It’s pathetic.

    However, Barnett points out, this is not a problem for Tribe, because Tribe is a Living Constitutionalist and not an Originalist. In other words, Tribe doesn’t think that just because it’s in the Constitution we should bother our little heads about it.

    Jonathan Turley also wrote something about it. Turley is not my idea of a full-on Libertarian Conservative Rightwingnut Extremist professor either. *g*

  • Julie near Chicago

    By the way, Laird, you have more faith in the brilliance of the Court’s intellect than I do. I think they might have trouble distinguishing between naturalization and birthright citizenship. *SNARK*

    Well, except J. Thomas. Once in awhile some of the others, by a fluke. *more snark*

  • Mr Ed

    What if the US invades and annexes Canada? Surely that would put the issue beyond doubt?

  • Julie near Chicago

    LOL! Actually, that’s been discussed. Some have suggested annexing just Calgary. I don’t know, Mr Ed. Perhaps when I invade and take over, you could come with me as Official British Envoy to the United States of America and Calgary.

  • Julie near Chicago

    Back to Ted. Here is the (I think “The”) pertinent part of the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952:

    https://www.uscis.gov/iframe/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/act.html

    INA: ACT 301 – NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH


    Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

    (a) –not pertinent
    (b) –not pertinent
    (c) –not pertinent

    (d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

    [SNIP — Remainder not pertinent]

    Of course, this tells us nothing about the “natural born” issue, but it does seem pretty straightforward that Ted is not a U.S. citizen at all if the rumor (it is ONLY rumor as far as I know) that his mother renounced her U.S. citizenship, OR if his father was not a U.S. national or a U.S. citizen.

    This raises two questions:

    1. Just what is a U.S. national as opposed to a U.S. citizen? I found the site of one immigration-law firm (catering I think to those who want to become U.S. ex-pats) that says that the difference isn’t all that clear, and anyway today is so slight that nobody pays any attention to it, so, again, we shouldn’t bother our little heads about it.

    2. But it also raises the question of whether, in the Constitution, the phrase “natural born citizen” should be read to mean “a citizen who is natural born” or as denoting a legal creature which is a citizen in virtue of being a “natural born citizen” — in other words, the subject phrase refers a different category into which persons who would not otherwise be citizens would fall.

    That would seem most peculiar. It would mean that one need not necessarily be a U.S. citizen at all to be President.

    Still, thoroughness requires that the possibility be noted.

    In any case, according to article (d), unless Ted’s father was a U.S. “national,” whatever that is, when (presumably, “when”) Ted was born, Ted is not a citizen unless he’s been naturalized. Or, even if he (the father) was, Ted’s mother would have to have still been a citizen when he was born.

    I have never seen anything that says Ted’s father had any sort of legal relationship to the U.S. (If that’s an acceptable way to put it.)

  • Julie near Chicago

    I forgot to note that I don’t know whether the pertinent part of the statute has been amended or repealed since 1952.

  • Mr Ed

    A statute cannot alter the Constitution, but it can give effect to provisions of the Constitution, as happened with Prohibition, the amendment allowing for it stated that the Congress could pass laws to enforce it, but the nbc clause doesn’t seem to bother to fo that.

    The matter would only be an issue as and when the Electoral College were to vote for Mr Cruz and he be declared the President, nothing says he can’t run.

  • JohnW

    Julie, I noticed, once again, in the most recent Presidential debate video you posted on Cats that Cruz at 53.00 mins could not restrain himself from committing yet another totally unnecessary snipe against abortion and gay marriage [ just before Trump handed his arse to him.] .
    Why do you think a person who supports individualism would do that?
    [BTW just in case you suspect I have an axe to grind I am 100% heterosexual.]

  • Laird

    Mr Ed, nothing in the Constitution says anything about “running” for president at all. In fact, in the early years of the republic no one did so; it was considered unseemly. They simply let be known that they would be willing to serve and had their surrogates do the politicking on their behalf. And of course, that was before selecting a president was perverted into a popularity contest, instead of the simple selection of a chief executive by the states qua states. The same late 19th century populist sentiment which gave rise to the disaster known of the 17th amendment, among other such travesties, is responsible for this.

    It was a more civilized age.

  • Laird

    Oh, and Mr Ed the 16th amendment specifically gave Congress the power to “lay and collect taxes from whatever source derived”, and since Congress can only act by statute implementing legislation was required and is necessarily implied in the language. However, the Framers believed “natural born citizen” to be self-explanatory (to any educated lawyer at the time) and hence there was (is) no need of implementing legislation.

  • Julie near Chicago

    Very simple, JohnW.

    Abortion:

    The Federal power is not supposed to override States’ powers to determine their own laws: See Amendment 10, for one thing. I believe it’s correct that the Federal Gov. is not supposed to have “Police Powers,” which are properly the States’, with a few exceptions; ask Laird for clarification on that, but that is the reason why each State has its own laws regarding what is or isn’t murder or manslaughter and in what degree, and what punishments attach to convictions in general. Therefore the States properly decide whether abortion should or shouldn’t be considered murder (it is certainly the taking of a human life, which requires a compelling logical argument in the context of the real situation, if it is not to be considered a crime), if so in what degree, and what punishment should attach thereto.

    I understand that Roe v. Wade was decided on the grounds that the right of privacy is protected in the Constitution. As a matter of fact, unlike an awful lot of conservatives (who don’t like Roe v. Wade) I insist that there is such a right, and it is protected under the NINTH Amendment (the notorious “inkblot”).

    I’ve never read the decision, so I can only give my thoughts about the privacy issue in a case like this. And it seems to me that while privacy is (properly) Constitutionally protected, there’s a limit to it. If I lure the Sith into my bedroom (yuck, what a thought!) and off him there, am I to be unprosecutable because the deed was done in the safety and convenience and PRIVACY of my own bedroom? On the other hand, there is Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down Texas’s sodomy laws. I don’t know what were the grounds for the decision, but even if privacy wasn’t the legal grounds for the argument made against Texas, it would seem pertinent.

    For an overview of my anti-abortion arguments, you might look at my explanation at


    http://www.samizdata.net/2013/04/thinking-aloud-on-a-mountainside/#comment-332997

    Continue reading down through the next two messages, including a slight clarification by me and then a comment from Jaded Libertarian, April 22, 2013 at 8:47 am. See also JV’s remark at 12:08 p.m.

    Add to those the fact that scientists reportedly are observing indications of CNS or brain formation or activity earlier and earlier, and that viable fœtuses have been born as early as 22 weeks after conception and that the age of extra-uterine viability (with the aid of technology) seems to be arriving earlier and earlier, and the “clump of cells” argument works for shorter and shorter periods after fertilization.

    In the same discussion, you might also scroll up to Mr Ed’s highly pertinent comment at April 21, 2013 at 10:10 am.

    The devil, of course, is in the details. One exception I would allow would be that of an anencephalic baby which literally lacks a brain and is past the point where it could develop one. But even there, one would have to be very sure. Anyway, this isn’t the place to dig deeper into the issue.
    . . .

    As for homosexual marriage (“gay” is a different word, meaning “happy, cheerful, and carefree,”, and has nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality, whether of the male or the female sort): Nothing anywhere gives the Supreme Court the power to redefine words in the English language (or any other, for that matter). “Marriage” in English, as applied to every Western or Westernized society that I know of, going back millenia, means essentially a lifetime union, or (as in for instance ancient Rome) until proper divorce, between a man and a woman. It’s simply what the word means.

    [What about polygamy? Well, the institution is called polygamy (or polyandry in the rare case of multiple “husbands” of the one woman or “wife”), and even there it’s the man and any one of the women or the woman and any of the men who are (sometimes) said to be “married.” Again, it’s properly up to the states as to whether to recognize the institution, and if so to decide whether it should or shouldn’t be legally recognized. NOTE: Speaking as a libertarian, I would get rid of ALL laws regarding marriage. If that happened, it would be up to each individual homosexual, baker, and Joe Doakes to decide whether in his own eyes a couple was properly “married” or not.]

    The Court has therefore now assumed the power to redefine words as it suits their several political, ideological, or philosophical feelings.

    If homosexuals want a civil union, they are welcome to have it as far as I’m concerned. If they want to make up (not take over, steal, hijack) a new word for it, or resurrect an archaic term that meant the same thing when it was in use at the time, then fine, no problem with me.

    It’s not the relationship I object to; it’s that the Court assumes a power never granted to it even by implication. Even given the blurriness at the edges of words, they do have a core meaning (or else are meaningless). As a disciple of Miss Rand, you must remember this remark (from memory): “James, you must learn that words have strict meanings.”

    I will note that in general the Constitution doesn’t give the Court or anyone else any power over the issue of marriage. Again it’s a Tenth-Amendment issue. The only excuse I can see for the Supreme Court to hear a case where marriage is the central issue or deciding factor would be that of a case of tax law, where the taxability of an inheritance might be at issue. Even the other legal issues I’ve heard about seem to me to be matters for the States.

    . . .

  • Julie near Chicago

    ADDITION:

    John (and others), that whole long discussion is very, very interesting. As another particularly good comment, see midwesterner’s at April 22, 2013 at 7:35 pm, plus the next several (including the first half, anyway, of my next contribution). I wish I had time at the moment to re-read the whole thing.

    . . .

    Natalie: That posting from you has to be one of the best ever, both on its own and for the commentary it elicited. Thanks so much! 🙂

  • Julie near Chicago

    Laird, thanks for the info at 6 p.m. Didn’t know that about no formal “running.” Very interesting.

    To your comment just above I would add that most of the attendants at the Convention were, I think, quite well-educated as to political history and philosophy from Classical times right up through 1789.

    I mention this because every so often I hear talk about how the document really couldn’t be much of a guide because after all these guys were mostly farmers, i.e. rubes, and wouldn’t have been very sophisticated as to politics or legal history and terminology.

  • Julie near Chicago

    Mr Ed, this is really a fascinating discussion. No, as you and Laird point out, the Constitution has nothing to say about “running” and besides in those days (or immediately thereafter) people didn’t “run” for election.

    But we are deep into the technicalities of meaning here. To be eligible is not to run. To be eligible is, in this context, to be eligible to hold the office of the Presidency, and the Constitution does specify requirements that must be met by the legitimate office-holder: natural born citizenship; minimum age; residency requirement.

    Now, unless we extrapolate backwards from the requirements for holding the office, we are in a situation in which ONLY a sitting President can be disqualified on the grounds of Constitutional requirements.

    However, it has been noted that the removal of a sitting (acting) “President,” even if a usurper, would be legally problematical. –I read this only yesterday. Forgotten where already. 🙁

    Even the concept of “eligibility” is forward-looking in its connotation: Does it not suggest that “if elected/chosen/appointed/hired the candidate/nominee/job-hunter will meet the requirements necessary to actually HOLD the job”? Although I’ll observe that we can talk about one’s eligibility to apply (say) as opposed to one’s eligility to serve, having applied and been accepted.

    However, your point as written is technically correct. And worth making.

  • AngryTory

    after all these guys were mostly farmers, i.e. rubes,

    they were gentlemen farmers well educated property owners, most speaking greek and latin – and they expected all voters and elected representatives, let alone the president, to be so as well

  • Julie near Chicago

    Hah! Yes indeed, A.T.!

  • Laird

    Julie, with respect to that comment about the Framers of the Constitution being “farmers”, in fact only two of the 55 were small farmers (and of those, one had substantial other business interests and the other was also a lawyer). Another dozen were owners of large agricultural operations (plantations, etc.), but that is hardly what people mean when they derisively refer to “farmers”. 35 of the body were lawyers or had legal training. On the whole they were highly educated people, the cream of their society. Here is a nice brief biographical summary of the delegates. Anyone who denigrates their qualifications is grossly, even offensively, ignorant.

  • Nicholas (Andy.royd) Gray

    “Lawyers”?!!!!
    You let lawyers near your Constitution?
    What were you thinking?

  • Julie near Chicago

    Yes, but Laird, I have it on the authority of the Campaign for Liberty that nothing on any government site is to be believed. *eyebrows raised*

    (What a snotty bunch. This occurred at their booth at a Tea Party rally I attended back in 2009. I made the mistake of suggesting to to somebody that a scan of the actual Constitution was available at the site. You’d think I’d suggested The Protocols of the Elders of Zion for the real historical lowdown at a Hadassah meeting.)

    However, I haven’t seen the page you linked to above, so thank you very very much for the link. 🙂

  • Paul Marks

    Which of the candidates today in New Hampshire has produced proposals to reduce the size and scope of government?

    Only one candidate has done so – Ted Cruz.

    He has argued (as a first step) for getting rid of Five Federal Government Departments and 25 Federal Government Agencies.

    None of the other candidates (of either party) have suggested any real cuts in the size and scope of government.

    This is what matters – to someone who wants (and believes the world needs) SMALLER GOVERNMENT.

    Everything is just sound and fury – signifying nothing.

  • Paul Marks

    Everything else is just sound and fury – signifying nothing.

    Government must be scaled back – or Civil Society (civilisation) will collapse.

    And no candidate, other than Ted Cruz, has any proposals to do so.

  • Julie near Chicago

    As far as I can tell, Paul, you’re perfectly correct. Which is why I will vote for the man in the primary. And hope he does pull it out somehow.

  • AngryTory

    What’s worse? Big government on an invasion.

    TRUMP™!

  • Paul Marks

    Many thanks Julie – if only everyone were like you.

    Angry Tory.

    Big government (the out of control Welfare State and the Credit Bubble financial system – including the property bubble that has created Mr Trump) is an invasion.

    It is destroying the United States armed forces (they are being cut to bits to try and pay for the out of control Welfare State) – and the free stuff is attracting exactly the wrong sort of immigrant. The United States had a open border for a century before mass immigration from Latin America – what changed? the introduction of FREE STUFF is what changed.

    As for Mr Trump – I can remember when he was denouncing Mitt Romney (of all people) for being too tough on illegal immigrants.

    The voters seem to have the memory of May Flies.

    People who trust Donald Trump – I have a nice bridge to sell you.

  • JohnW

    I do not trust Trump but I trust him a whole lot more than Cruz.