Sen. Ted Cruz Makes It Official

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

There is some argument to be made about high-skilled workers. I read a report, didn't save the link from several years ago, where big corporations (Xerox and others) who were complaining that they were not getting any kids coming out of college who were educated or skilled enough to be qualified to work much less take over these large companies in the future.

So, let's not gloss over that we don't have an education problem in America. After all, we are ranked behind a lot of countries in fundamentals.

Look at this graph from 2013 regarding Math, Reading and Science. This is from Business Insider.



http://www.businessinsider.com/pisa-rankings-2013-12

Yeah I've seen what those brilliant Asian engineers can do. They can derive an equation from scratch theory but give them a blank sheet of paper and they give you a blank look of puzzlement while they try to figure out what to do with it. They can copy the design of anything, but they can't conceptualize a design from nothing. They can't even get started.

Which makes their "high level math skills" pretty much worthless.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Esaias

You mean Ron Paul the Mason? Ron "I support Mitt Romney" Paul? Ron "My campaign staff consistently works against the grassroots supporters" Paul? Ron "my campaign was illegally sabotaged by the Retardican Party but I'm not gonna do or say ANYTHING about it" Paul? Ron "where'd all the campaign donations go?" Paul? Ron "had solid evidence of election fraud but won't support any effort to secure justice" Paul?

Is that who you mean?

probably...he is a polit, after all.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

I'm not bothered by the article stating Rand Paul didn't sign as friend of the court brief. IMO, there are some issues the government has no business getting involved, and marriage is one of those issues.

I can agree with you there.

However, it is the law today. A new hearing will be held April 28 and briefs will be filed in the Supreme Court.

Ted Cruz is thinking ahead so as not to lose ground on the issue. That is smart planning. He is an extremely intelligent and principled man. Have to give him props for that.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I can agree with you there.

However, it is the law today. A new hearing will be held April 28 and briefs will be filed in the Supreme Court.

Ted Cruz is thinking ahead so as not to lose ground on the issue. That is smart planning. He is an extremely intelligent and principled man. Have to give him props for that.

What will stripping the SCOTUS of jurisdiction accomplish, since lower courts have repeatedly ruled against voter-led marriage initiatives? Or will all the lower Federal Court decisions regarding marriage be nullified with this kind of Congressional action?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

What will stripping the SCOTUS of jurisdiction accomplish, since lower courts have repeatedly ruled against voter-led marriage initiatives? Or will all the lower Federal Court decisions regarding marriage be nullified with this kind of Congressional action?

Obviously, it is a 10th Amendment issue and should stay with the state legislatures. States set marriage age limits, they should also be the ones that define marriage. After all, if states have the right to vote in or out marijuana laws, marriage laws are essentially the same type of decision.

We need to protect that definition until we are able to remove the right from the states as well. Not seeing that ever happening, but we have to start at the top and take that right away from the Federal government.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Obviously, it is a 10th Amendment issue and should stay with the state legislatures. States set marriage age limits, they should also be the ones that define marriage. After all, if states have the right to vote in or out marijuana laws, marriage laws are essentially the same type of decision.

We need to protect that definition until we are able to remove the right from the states as well. Not seeing that ever happening, but we have to start at the top and take that right away from the Federal government.

I agree, but I don't see how stripping the SCOTUS of jurisdiction does much, unless it also nullifies decisions and strips jurisdiction from all Federal courts which either have ruled or are reviewing marriage cases.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

I agree, but I don't see how stripping the SCOTUS of jurisdiction does much, unless it also nullifies decisions and strips jurisdiction from all Federal courts which either have ruled or are reviewing marriage cases.

If the lower courts follow, which they do, the ruling of the higher court then stripping SCOTUS of jurisdiction gives teeth to stopping the lower courts from doing so as well. Starting at the top, legally, is a good step.

Cruz proposed a well written bill, which was introduced under the previous Congress.

Text of the State Marriage Defense Act of 2014

A BILL

To amend chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, with regard to the definition of "marriage" and "spouse" for Federal purposes and to ensure respect for State regulation of marriage.
1. Short title

This Act may be cited as the " State Marriage Defense Act of 2014 ".

2.Findings

Congress finds the following:
(1)

Congress affirms the States’ legitimate and proper public policy interests in regulating domestic relations and in defining marriage for the residents of their States.
(2)

Despite striking down section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) did not institute a new Federal definition of marriage that includes same sex marriage. Instead, United States v. Windsor specifically required the Federal Government to defer to "state sovereign choices about who may be married" in determining marital status for Federal purposes.
(3)

United States v. Windsor reaffirmed that the "historic and essential authority to define the marital relation" rests with the States and criticized Federal actions that "put a thumb on the scales and influence a state’s decision as to how to shape its own marriage laws".
(4)

Congress recognizes that current actions by the Federal Government to afford benefits to certain relationships not recognized as marriages by a person’s State of residence go beyond the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Windsor. These Federal actions create "two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State," in direct contradiction of United States v. Windsor.
(5)

Actions taken by the Federal Government to grant recognition of marital status for persons not recognized as married in their State of domicile undermine a State’s legitimate authority to define marriage for its residents.

3. Amendment to definition of marriage for Federal purposes

Section 7 of title 1, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

7. Definition of marriage and spouse

For purposes of determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, as applied with respect to individuals domiciled in a State or in any other territory or possession of the United States, the term marriage shall not include any relationship which that State, territory, or possession does not recognize as a marriage, and the term spouse shall not include an individual who is a party to a relationship that is not recognized as a marriage by that State, territory, or possession.


https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s2024/text

[shazeep]

[n david]

I don't believe Ted Cruz is evil.

[shazeep]

well, but that doesn't mean he isn't deceived. Not sure there's much diff at the end of the day.

"Presidents are selected, not elected" FDR