Great points! I think a lot of people like Trump's, I will use the EO to do away with all of Obama's EOs however, what is to stop him for taking the power for himself with his own EOs, as you rightly pointed out. I for one also do not like presidents that "rule" by pen and phone. We did not want kings or tyrants, now it seems that is what the job attracts!

I believe the establishment republicans will move over to the progressives, while the remainder will create a new tea party that will be fiscally and socially conservative, with a smaller foreign policy footprint. The religious aspect is likely to be to turn such things over to the states.

Out of the gaggle, whom do you like?

Trump, a crypto dictator.
Cruz has a brilliant mind, is a threat to the old-liners but is a politician at heart.
Apparently this is the cream of the crap...er, crop.

Good points!

The democrats and republicans are morphing into the tea party and the socialist party. People from both parties will move to one of the new parties, in a philosophical shakeout that's likely to surprise many.

Your right! That is the definition of a "NEOCON" and that is not Conservatism or "Classical Liberalism". There is a world of difference so it is important to understand terminology and use the correct term to get your point across, otherwise everyone is confused!

Why not go from 80k pages to one page in one fell swoop?!?

Two consenting adults engaging in sex for any reason including money for instance? No government role in that "contract".

What bothers me is this...

The RP has worked so hard to divide itself into this camp or the other camp, while the left is rubbing their hands together and cackling with glee, as they prepare to put either an avowed socialist with communistic leanings or a socialist with a penchant for entitlement and dishonesty on the throne because the RP has divided itself.

And Cruz? Not eligible. Sorry, he was born in Canada. Same reason my other half is ineligible - even tho born to US citizens dating back some 300+ years the birth happened in Trinidad. It's not even the "McCain Exemption" where it was the Panama Zone, or the "Obama exemption" because Hawaii was a US territory in 1959... it was a FOREIGN COUNTRY. Ya know, Maple leaf national flag, Former British Commonwealth, etc. And I won't even bring up his Cuban father...

And still he runs, and somehow that's OK. Why not let Schwarzenegger run for PotUS? Hmmm???

Why they keep bringing this guy up, well, I just don't get it. HOW can he be eligible?

Yes they are... although social liberals like social conservatives like to pick and choose when government can and cannot infringe.

I'm not sure I see the Constitutional protections you are talking about. Remember, the Constitution is to limit the powers of the Federal Government to specific key areas. If you want to argue that the Federal Government has no enumerated power to govern a person's sex life, I completely agree. Same for gambling or liquor or drugs. Those same prohibitions, however, do not apply to the individual States, because the Ninth and Tenth Amendment specifically relegate all powers not specifically ceded to the Federal Government to the States.

As for the philosophical arguments of each, they merit their own discussions. What I would point out, however, is that each of the cases you have cited are not rights-based. Rights are individual, while the actions you cite involve the interactions of two or more parties. Once the conversation turns to interactions, it becomes a matter of debate over social contract and norms. Government at its base is all about defining accepted behaviors and social norms - especially the legality of each.

If you want to differentiate between a social conservative and a fiscal conservative, I agree, but it helps to be specific with your terms. Someone who is a social liberal and fiscal conservative is more closely aligned to the libertarians, however.

Speech for one... support for War On Drugs and other government Wars on personal behavior including sex, gambling, even still liquor
.

Not all conservatives are social conservatives...

Except Obama has a real agenda and Trump is just a crony socialist, most similar to Biff from Back to the Future II.

The problem is that the President's job is to carry out or execute the laws passed by Congress. His job is to prosecute wars duly voted on in Congress - not instigate them. The President shouldn't be presenting a budget. He shouldn't be stumping for controls on anything. He should be waiting on Congress to act and then carrying those duties out.

The second the President becomes involved in deciding what needs to be law, he is becoming a legislator, not an executor. According to my read of the Constitution, the President is only authorized as executive. He is also prohibited from meddling with the judicial - as has been the case with the Department of Justice.

Can you point to any specifics?

I would also hasten to note that the Republican Party divorced themselves from conservatives a long time ago. I agree that establishment Republicans are a problem, but not because they are conservative...

Government should not have any role in medical decisions.... using the coercive power of government to get people to do what you want them to is always wrong... no matter which political viewpoint is doing it.

Social conservatives prepared to toss out the Constitution as well... and the headline at least implied biggest threat to the Republican Party... which is a worthy goal... just not that way.

Well said