Ted Cruz, Longtime Foe Of NASA And Science, Will Oversee NASA And Science In New Congress

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: NavyDoc
That's not what they said nor that is not what your link says.

I quoted the page. It is exactly what it says.

The Natural Born Citizen Clause has never been interpreted by the SCOTUS, and seeing as that is the only place "natural born citizen" appears within the law, it's legal definition has NEVER BEEN SET.

Keep trying though, it's funny.

Yes. They have made individual rulings.

But, by intent (apparently) left the door open for interpretation.

They have ruled on individuals, not the term. That is correct, and the crux of my point.

If there was a "hard and fast" rule, John McCain would not have been eligible. He was born prior to the ruling of children born out of country to military parents. Nothing in that ruling stated it was retroactive. He was made legal.

This will clear up your confusion surrounding John McCain.

www.govtrack.us...

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: NavyDoc
That's not what they said nor that is not what your link says.

I quoted the page. It is exactly what it says.

The Natural Born Citizen Clause has never been interpreted by the SCOTUS, and seeing as that is the only place "natural born citizen" appears within the law, it's legal definition has NEVER BEEN SET.

Keep trying though, it's funny.

Logic not your strong suit is it. When they rule on an individual under the law, in this case, "natural born citizen" they are ruling the law, it's definition, and how it affects the particular case. You can't rule on anything, even say speeding, without providing a definition of the wording of the law, even speeding. If speeding were not defined by a ruling on speeding, there would be nothing to rule on.

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: NavyDoc
That's not what they said nor that is not what your link says.

I quoted the page. It is exactly what it says.

The Natural Born Citizen Clause has never been interpreted by the SCOTUS, and seeing as that is the only place "natural born citizen" appears within the law, it's legal definition has NEVER BEEN SET.

Keep trying though, it's funny.

Yes. They have made individual rulings.

But, by intent (apparently) left the door open for interpretation.

They have ruled on individuals, not the term. That is correct, and the crux of my point.

If there was a "hard and fast" rule, John McCain would not have been eligible. He was born prior to the ruling of children born out of country to military parents. Nothing in that ruling stated it was retroactive. He was made legal.

This will clear up your confusion surrounding John McCain.

www.govtrack.us...

Arrow ----- I spent many weeks in discussion/debate regarding the John McCain case.

I am not confused.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: NavyDoc
That's not what they said nor that is not what your link says.

I quoted the page. It is exactly what it says.

The Natural Born Citizen Clause has never been interpreted by the SCOTUS, and seeing as that is the only place "natural born citizen" appears within the law, it's legal definition has NEVER BEEN SET.

Keep trying though, it's funny.

Logic not your strong suit is it. When they rule on an individual under the law, in this case, "natural born citizen" they are ruling the law, it's definition, and how it affects the particular case. You can't rule on anything, even say speeding, without providing a definition of the wording of the law, even speeding. If speeding were not defined by a ruling on speeding, there would be nothing to rule on.

No. I'm sorry, your incorrect.

Good laws have their definitions within them, like speeding. Bad laws, like the Natural Born Citizen clause, aren't defined, and as such are open to interpretation. When literally nothing else in the law uses the term Natural Born Citizen to describe itself, nothing the courts rule on touches on the term Natural Born Citizen.

They can reference Natural Born Citizens within their decisions, because it is a legal status, but again, it is a legal status that has not been defined, because it has not been challenged in court.

If they could do this, they could redefine any law they wanted to during any decision, and that isn't the case.

originally posted by: Annee
Arrow ----- I spent many weeks in discussion/debate regarding the John McCain case.

I am not confused.

Well, you seem to be confused on how he was made eligible to run for the Presidency.

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: Annee
Arrow ----- I spent many weeks in discussion/debate regarding the John McCain case.

I am not confused.

Well, you seem to be confused on how he was made eligible to run for the Presidency.

No. I didn't go into that detail is all.

Only that action had to be taken to make him legal/eligible. Which I agree with.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: Annee
Arrow ----- I spent many weeks in discussion/debate regarding the John McCain case.

I am not confused.

Well, you seem to be confused on how he was made eligible to run for the Presidency.

No. I didn't go into that detail is all.

Only that action had to be taken to make him legal.

Ah, my apologies. I did misread your post.

You're right. Action had to be taken to make him legal because it was unclear as to whether or not his status was that of a Natural Born Citizen. Cruz wasn't born on a military base, was he?

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TheArrow

originally posted by: Annee
Arrow ----- I spent many weeks in discussion/debate regarding the John McCain case.

I am not confused.

Well, you seem to be confused on how he was made eligible to run for the Presidency.

No. I didn't go into that detail is all.

Only that action had to be taken to make him legal.

Ah, my apologies. I did misread your post.

You're right. Action had to be taken to make him legal because it was unclear as to whether or not his status was that of a Natural Born Citizen. Cruz wasn't born on a military base, was he?

No worries

Cruz was not born on a military base or to military parents. His mother is a Natural Born citizen. His father became a citizen.

In researching this, apparently he is considered Natural Born according to laws (rulings) at the time of his birth. But, the laws (rulings) have changed and he does not qualify under the new laws (rulings).

So, I expect he will be ruled eligible if that time comes.

But, I have not spent considerable time researching this. So, I can not say positively for sure.

My thoughts are live by the sword die by the sword, live by dumbing down the public die by being dumbed down yourself.

NASA has had it comming for some time, its just gods way of ending an idea that has always been really bad.

I wouldnt think NASA had it comming if they didnt blank thier cameras every single time a UFO shows up.

Or if they were a bit more truthful and inclusive of the public in the space program the public has been and still is paying for.

Yeah your paying for it but you cant go into space. How about if the public cant go no one goes. . . .

NASA and Ted Cruz a match made in heaven. . . .

Que evil laughter at the begining of the end:

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: TheArrow

Yeah. It's a parody. But some Christians do believe that some dinosaurs survived the flood, because of the mention of giants in the Bible. When Moses' scouts went out looking for valleys flowing with milk and honey, they stayed away from the areas where the giants were so big, the men were like grass hoppers to them!

Dinosaurs!

That was the Nephillim, not dinos. lol

a reply to: Annee

But, the laws (rulings) have changed and he does not qualify under the new laws (rulings).

What change in laws or rulings? The woman held in jail last year in Africa for being a Christian, who had an American citizen husband, her children were US citizens. That's the only reason the US State Department got involved. Her children were with her in the prison.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: TheArrow

Yeah. It's a parody. But some Christians do believe that some dinosaurs survived the flood, because of the mention of giants in the Bible. When Moses' scouts went out looking for valleys flowing with milk and honey, they stayed away from the areas where the giants were so big, the men were like grass hoppers to them!

Dinosaurs!

That was the Nephillim, not dinos. lol

Haha. Tell THAT to the Christians who tout out those scriptures, and others about the "behemoth" and "leviathan" as proof of dinosaurs living with people.

With all the talk about the current president, people forget the power one congressperson can wield. This power can be used for good or bad, to improve or to lessen the nation. Afterall, it is Congress that makes the laws and handles the money.

For ex, I give you Cruz’s fellow Texan, former Senator Gramm, back in 2000. This article is from 2008, so the “eight years ago” refers to 2000 (but the plan had been in the works for years).

Who's to blame for the biggest financial catastrophe of our time? There are plenty of culprits, but one candidate for lead perp is former Sen. Phil Gramm. Eight years ago, as part of a decades-long anti-regulatory crusade, Gramm pulled a sly legislative maneuver that greased the way to the multibillion-dollar subprime meltdown. ............

As Congress and the White House were hurriedly hammering out a $384-billion omnibus spending bill, Gramm slipped in a 262-page measure called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act.

source.....quite a read

What could Ted Cruz do? Continue publicly to disparage science on behalf of multinational business. Anti-science stupidity serves the purposes of not addressing pollution that affects the environment and our bodies, of not addressing ecological concerns, and of not providing leadership in the very areas that the nation once excelled in.

Like Senator Gramm, one senator can insert language into bills repealing regulations, which makes no sense in an increasingly complicated, complex world. Well, it makes no sense except to corporate donors and propagandists. Or, that Senator, if an ideologue like Cruz, can whip up the base to demand such action. Either way, we the people lose.

a reply to: desert

Honestly, I wouldn't worry too much about Cruz. While his rhetoric has regional appeal he has no national appeal so he won't be president and people like him have a short shelf life. Besides that, it's not the worst thing to have a man who is going to be critical and ask hard questions of agencies like NASA. I don't think we want to give them a blank check even if they do important work.

So all in all his position isn't great for those of us who are fans of science but it's a short term thing because his approach to politics simply doesn't have staying power, he's like a Michelle Bachmann.

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: TheArrow

Yeah. It's a parody. But some Christians do believe that some dinosaurs survived the flood, because of the mention of giants in the Bible. When Moses' scouts went out looking for valleys flowing with milk and honey, they stayed away from the areas where the giants were so big, the men were like grass hoppers to them!

Dinosaurs!

That was the Nephillim, not dinos. lol

Haha. Tell THAT to the Christians who tout out those scriptures, and others about the "behemoth" and "leviathan" as proof of dinosaurs living with people.

That ^ was in The Book of Job, earlier you were speaking of Genesis and Joshua.

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

Yeah your paying for it but you cant go into space. How about if the public cant go no one goes. . . .

the public can go, there have been 7 space tourists since 2001. its just not exactly affordable.

Ted was the perfect choice considering all that space between his ears.

a reply to: Aazadan

Thank you for your reply. I hope you are right.

NASA does receive bipartisan support. Many NASA centers are located in conservative (GOP) areas of the country, so eliminating NASA would not fly…pun intended. As a TEXAS Senator, Cruz represents Houston.

Rooting out fraud and making govt programs run more efficiently should be done by any elected leader. However, one congressman’s waste is another one’s necessity. I am curious to see what NASA programs Republicans might want to emphasize and de-emphasize.

In the end, Ted Cruz is all about…..Ted Cruz. He is a gifted orator, which I wish he would put to better use than spout extremist ideology. But then, that’s not Ted Cruz.

He is a gift and a burden to the GOP. He riles up a needed part of their voters, but he won’t play nice or by the political rules, almost mutinous.

Many of us are finding humor in the appointment of someone like Cruz to a science committee. It could be a GOP ploy to keep NASA going but at the same time be anti-science; or maybe it will just add a new meaning to “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord



Yeah your paying for it but you cant go into space. How about if the public cant go no one goes. . . .

the public can go, there have been 7 space tourists since 2001. its just not exactly affordable.

Oh well then no one goes if we all cant go.

This only the few and not the many system has to change, when theres a will theres a way, and it doesnt take a rocket scientist to see capatilism is on its last leg.

The needs of the few do not outweigh the needs of the many, if its not for everyone then the bottom line is that it needs to end.

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

its a bit irrational to say no one goes if we all cant go..
not everyone can afford a trip overseas neither..