Elections

Ted Cruz’s Platform

by

 

Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz, more than any other candidate, really seems intent on reducing  the size of government in Washington  and the scope of its power in our lives. Ted is a deeply  religious man, and normally I’m uncomfortable with candidates who wear their religious beliefs on their chest. However, the perfect is the enemy of the good, and that’s a very tiny flaw to overlook.

Most impressive to me is his  Five for Freedom plan. This from the first section:

Abolish the IRS, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. A Cruz Administration will appoint heads of each of those agencies whose sole charge will be to wind them down and determine whether any programs need to be preserved.

  1. Internal Revenue Services end the political targeting, simplify the tax code, and abolish the IRS as we know it.
  2. Department of Education return education to those who know our students best: parents, teachers, local communities, and states. And block-grant education funding to the states.
  3. Department of Energy cut off the Washington Cartel, stop picking winners and losers, and unleash the energy renaissance.
  4. Department of Commerce close the “congressional cookie jar” and promote free-enterprise and free trade for every business.
  5. Department of Housing and Urban Development offer real solutions to lift people out of hardship, rather than trapping families in a cycle of poverty, and empower Americans by promoting the dignity of work and reforming programs such as Section 8 housing.

Read more

“Litigating (former) Senator Hillary Clinton’s Legal Woes: A Response to Professor Rick Hasen (Election Law Blog) and Michael Stern (Point of Order blog)”

by

Seth Barrett Tillman responds to a couple of thoughtful critics of his earlier post about possible legal issues facing some of the current presidential candidates.

Excerpt:

In a prior post, I wrote that in evaluating election law provisions, including qualifications, we should allow ties go to the runner, expand the democracy, allow the contested candidate to compete, and allow the voters to decide. I stand behind all of that. But in a conflict, should there be a conflict, between a criminal prosecution and an election, we have two competing principles: one, protecting the democratic process from wrongful manipulation by prosecutors and courts, and two, the rule of law, applying the criminal law without fear or favor to all, even against those who are politically connected. I certainly do not want prosecutors and courts pre-empting the voters in elections. But I also do not want a candidate’s participation in an election to amount to immunity in regard to established law, particularly where other (less fortunate) people have faced similar sanctions for similar conduct. This is a genuine conflict, it is not one which I have opined on in the past, and there are no easy solutions.
 
[. . .]
 
I know that my merely raising the legal issues which are likely to arise from a Clinton indictment or impeachment does not interfere with either democracy or “letting the voters decide.” Quite the opposite. Voters who have been fully informed about the legal jeopardy Senator Clinton may or may not face under Section 2071 exercise their voting rights in a more meaningful fashion than they otherwise would. If you do not agree with that, then tell me why?

There is much more of interest in Seth’s new post.

“Democratic Party Iowa Vote Total: under 1,500 votes — 1,500 votes — 1,500 votes: Did the Democratic Party Just Implode in Iowa?”

by

Seth Barrett Tillman wants to know:

94% of the precincts have reported (for the Democrats). The Democratic Party vote is … 660 votes for Clinton, and 649 votes for Sanders, with each candidate getting around 50% of the Democratic Party vote, and 21 convention delegates.
 
Between Sanders and Clinton, there are fewer than 1,500 votes.

Seth’s brief post is worth reading in full.

UPDATE: Seth has amended his post in response to reader comments.

“Two Presidential Candidates: Consistent Treatment?”

by

Seth Barrett Tillman considers legal issues relating to the respective presidential candidacies of Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton.

Guess whose candidacy raises the most complex and troubling legal questions?

There are many fora (including several widely read individual, group, and journal-run blogs) whose mission, if not primary mission, includes discussion of time-sensitive legal issues of public interest. Should not the public be informed about these Clinton-related possibilities and risks well before votes are cast? Why the silence among journalists, academic commentators (with expertise in election law, constitutional law, and statutory interpretation), and bloggers who usually very much like to write on issues of public moment? Would not this make a suitable–if not outstanding–journal symposium issue: “The Hillary Clinton Candidacy–The Legal Issues”? Any takers?
 
Given the silence, you would almost think “natural born citizen” were the only legal issue out there. Odd isn’t it?

Trump’s sense of humor.

by

I am not a Trump supporter but I enjoy the outrage in which the corrupt GOP establishment views him.

Now he has done it ! He won’t be in the Thursday debate. I agree that Megyn Kelly acted like a school girl in the first debate. I don’t blame him for resenting the way she acted. The establishment GOP are criticizing Trump for dropping out. Personally, I think a Trump-Sanders debate would be entertaining. The Weekly Standard is as looney as The National Review.

Then, he dropped a bombshell !

1barry

Personally, I think this is hilarious. Hillary was the source of the original questions about Obama’s birth. I think he was born in Hawaii but I also think he used his alleged foreign birth as a way to get favors at east coast colleges, like Columbia and Harvard. Nobody seems to remember him at Columbia.

I, for one, am enjoying the show.