Why arent you talking bad about Hillary or Sanders? THEY are the real bad guys

Cruz is a religious zealot with pretty crazy beliefs which he wants to bring to the presidency.

I would rather have a tea party than a socialist party. At least I get to keep more of what I earn. If Sanders gets elected, I will pretty much "shrug". I mean why work hard if you lose 62% of it to his new taxes?

Gulchers hate Trump. They better get over it before they are stuck with Sanders and his programs.

Trump is a master business person. He wont take crap from his advisors, in my estimation. I would love to be there in the room when some lowly bureaucrat gives him nonsense and tries to convince him of nonsense.

Trump has a lot of grass roots support which isnt going away. People dont want to publicly say they will vote for Trump, but my estimate is that he has MORE support than the media give him

If R-establishment hates Cruz, then they are a bigger part of the problem than I thought. (Can't read the article. Asks for login).

Trump is a politician-buying, eminent domain opportunistic narcissist, not really different than the progressives, just more blatant about his power grabs.

Cruz is the only viable candidate for small government and the constitution (unfortunately also for fantasy-inspired morals, but irrelevant).

Please Bloomberg, run as and independent and wipe out Hillary and Bernie-Hood.

I dont understand this hatred for Trump. He is NOT a socialist, of all things. Sanders and Hillary ARE socialists. Cruz is a religious zealot, as is Rubio. Vote for Trump, or you are going to get Sanders with his 62% federal income tax. How about that?

Cruz is a big time religious zealot. He even wants to kick gays out of the military (again). He probably even believes the earth is flat and there is no evolution. That is a scarier than Trump by a LONG shot. Cruz would never beat Hillary or Sanders. People are tired of the big spending democrats

My choice too......

I do not think he will attempt to go for a third term. This is not because he is done.

His "Library" all ready has 1 billion raised. Without the constraints of pleasing to some degree the public he will be able to use that money, and what comes in later, to do more damage than he did in office. He is now a monster machine that can sway public opinion through 1500 new "charities" that he creates, or 1000 media outlets on the web.... to push an idea or concept.

In the future he will effect change without us knowing its him behind it, that is far more powerful than a president and it will be who Obama becomes.

Thanks for the clarification.

The intent of the separation of powers is real. I am not so sure it has been practices. Jefferson went around it on the Luisana purchase. He signed the agreement with France and then went to congress about it after the fact, he did at least get it validated by congress after the fact, later Jackson and others just did it anyway.

It is the failure of congress to say "What the %$#@" and stop the crap. Congress has for at least 100 years failed to call the executive branch to the carpet over and over again. Its not a failure of the constitution, but of the people in congress to uphold the constitution.

I don't think that it's tongue in cheek or in jest any longer. Many people who I talk to think that he will try to get a third term. Remember that he isn't finished "fundamentally changing the direction of the country." It isn't completely Marxist yet. Even if he doesn't get a third term, he will stick around D.C. to make life miserable for the next president.

Cruz was my preference from the start. I think he will:

Move the republican party towards a small government party.
revitalize the tea party

While I do not see any of them making huge headway, these two things are critical to get things shifting in the right direction. I do not think any of the others could do it, or would do what is needed to cause such a shift, like call a liar a liar on the floor of the senate.

made me laugh

Would love to see that. Better yet eliminate both corporate tax, and income tax. have only a sales tax and do a constitutional amendment to make it unconstittuion for any government organization to collect a tax directly from the people other than a sales tax, then there are no pages.

Why not do it all at once? It would not pass.

It has gradually gotten to where we are law by law, precept by precept. If you attempt to tear it all away, no one will go for it. It will have to be undone much the way it was done.

Agreed, those who do not wish to do it, do not have to. I am a religious person but I do not agree with government legislating any form of value system on its people with the exception of prevent the initiation of force.

You are spot on correct! I don't know if that is the model that Congress and the president have been using ever since but sure sounds like it might be the genesis of the erosion of the original meaning of "Separation of Powers".

Susanne,

If you look up the law concerning "Natural Born Citizen" you will find that it actually is to include those born to citizens outside the US as "Natural Born Citizens" to make it so that those kids do not have to go through the naturalization process to become a citizen. This means the Cruz is eligible.

At the time the constitution was put into place, this would have legally meant that a child born to a father who was a US citizen in another country wuold be a US citizen by birth, or a "Natural Born Citizen." Over the years since that time it has evolved some. First to require both parents be citizens, and then to require only one parent, mother of father, be a citizen. It is this last (one parent) that was applicable at the time of Cruz's birth.

This has been challenged before, the challenged caused an addition to the legal definition which requires that you have lived 15 years in the US as well as having one parent that was a citizen at the time of your birth.

Never at any time has the location of birth had anything to do with being a "Natural Born Citizen" or not.

Just FYI

The trouble with the original Separation of Powers is that it stopped working centuries ago. When Andrew Jackson defied a Supreme Court order and went ahead and carried out the Indian Removal Act, and got away with it scot-free, that was not an example of our Constitution working -- it was a violation of it that has yet to be remedied or a remedy even enabled, all thanks to that so-called Separation of Powers.

Blarman: Your comment hits the heart of the matter and so relevant to the present day situation- a President that has from the beginning "legislated" his will with no intent of "executing" the will of the people or congress/senate.
And I might add... done so with an "in your face" attitude.

You misread my thoughts. I am only saying I like his (Trump's) populist rhetoric where he is spouting what 65% of Americans feel and what they are most angry about. He has tapped into that anger, its just not clear that he really believes what he is saying.

I said, I might support him down the road when he proved that he is being true to his words. Furthermore, in order to prove that since he doesn't have any past history proving it from his actions, he might want to form a "Contract with America" where he lays it out like the one that the Republicans did against Clinton when they took control of the House and Senate.

That is probably the only way I would believe him enough to perhaps vote for him. Hope that clears it up a bit!

Sorry! The best is the Separation of Powers, as designed by the framers. If you want to change it, follow the prescribed methods! Either Congress follows the Constitution or we go to Article V and have the states convene a Convention of States. George Mason had it spot on correct! It is another balance to ensure the Republic endures! Do it with EOs or backroom deals with Congress and you have sealed your own fate! A vigilant electorate and Term Limits will fix what is currently ailing this once great country!