Saturday, April 2, 2016

FACT CHECK: Cruz's Cred on Constitutional Conservatism

I have had many interactions with Cruz supporters continuing to herald his qualifications as a "Constitutional Conservative."  I debate that on the merits of his record.  I am not suggesting that Ted Cruz is Harry Reid.  But he is not Antonin Scalia either.  It is important to put outisde the talking points, the PR and campaign ads and look at the facts:

Article One
  • Cruz was very good bringing attention to the problems of ObamaCare.  But since he has been silent on it's unconstitutional passing.  At one tim ehe was willing to shut down government.  But after giving the Republican Establishment a donatoin of $240,000 from his PAC and taking a position as joint Chairman of the NRSC, he complains about the law, but brings no attention to the subversion of the process. Few recall how Harry Reid changed Senate rules to bypass the Scott Brown election that kept the Democrats from obtaining the 60 votes needed to pass ObamaCare outright.  They changed the rules to only require a simple majority, and we've never heard a filibuster or lawsuit from Cruz since. Pelosi's unconstitutional adoption of a Senate military housing bill to make a 'revenue'  ObamaCare bill is in violation of the Constitution which clearly defines that revenue bills must originate in the House. Reid and company used political procedures to override both the law and intent of the Constitution.  Cruz has used similar tactics including in the passing of ObamaTrade.
  • Ted Cruz authored the Senate bill for ObamaTrade (or TPP/TPA).  He took to the airwaves with Rand Paul to speak vigorously for it.  What does the Trans-Pacific Trade treaty do? It subverts the US Constitution by placing the authority of US interests and companies under the power of the World Bank and foreign countries that represent over 40% of the world GDP.  Jeff Sessions said at the time:
....companies and investors would be empowered to challenge regulations, rules, government actions and court rulings — federal, state or local — before tribunals organized under the World Bank or the United Nations... critics, including many Democrats in Congress, argue that the planned deal widens the opening for multinationals to sue in the United States and elsewhere, giving greater priority to protecting corporate interests than promoting free trade and competition that benefits consumers.12 
 And it's far worse.  Foreign investors could sue the Federal, State, County and City entities for any US investment they made that went bad - even if it had nothing to do with those government entities involved.
One foreign government could bankrupt a state under the jurisdiction of foreign powers. The Huffington Post restated one provision this way:
"(International companies and investors) can collect not just for lost property or seized assets; they can collect if laws or regulations interfere with these giant companies' ability to collect what they claim are "expected future profits."16
Again, Ted Cruz AUTHORED this bill.  Many Cruz followers repeat his assertion that he had second thoughts and voted against it.  Many recall the MSM soundbite from Cruz that "Mitch McConnell lied."  This had nothing to do with the TPP bill itself, but with an amendment that funded the Import/Export Bank.  Ted continued to support ObamaTrade, and even engineered the Senate confirmation in a way that his individual vote would not be recorded. Furthermore Cruz affirmed this this past November by voting AGAINST a provision (Senate Amendment 1251) that stated:
"To require the approval of Congress before additional countries may join the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement”…
Look up the vote yourself.
In other words,  Senator Cruz did not want congress to be consulted before other countries, including China, could join TPP and put us directly under international law and foreign powers.
If that isn't bad enough, it also would flood the United States with foreign workers, and remove MANY protections already in law.  Via Breitbart:
Even if the migrant foreign workers (coming from foreign companies and governments as part of the TPP allowance) are paid American wage-levels, the huge influx of foreign workers will flood the U.S. market and drive down wages paid to American technicians and professionals. “It is pure supply-and-demand,” she said. For example, “if you increase the supply of legal services, you increase the number of law firms, you reduce the wages of [American] lawyers...”
On this measure, the TPP is written so foreign powers could literally force us to rewrite our immigration laws.  Forget Gang of Eight.  Any Constitutional - well, almost any Constitutional scholar, can see that this subverts the entire intent of Article I powers.
  • Ted Cruz claimed he would "talk until he couldn't stand" at the ObamaCare filibuster although according to Harry Reid's Communication Director, not only would Cruz have to abandon the floor for a per-scheduled vote, Cruz had negotiated the PR ploy with Reid in the first place.  Most conservatives like myself are happy for the attention it brought, but it shows that Cruz is not the "purist" he sells himself to be. In fact the very filibuster itself is believed to be unconstitutional.  It most certainly is abused and Cruz was part of that. But on aspects of Iran, the ObamaCare funding budget and other GOP establishment rubber stamps for Obama, Cruz no longer attempts the use of this tool he said was so critical to our Constitution.

Article Two and Three


However scholarship papers and Notable Officials to the contrary are legion including Ted Cruz's own Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe.  A few include:

Harvard Law Professor, Former Chairman of the Antitrust Advisory Committee to Obama's campaign, Einer Elhauge, filed an amicus brief at the New York Supreme Court advising the court that Canadian-born Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president under the Article II natural born Citizen requirement.  Elhauge also says it's not a political question but a Constitutional one.

The Supreme Court Ruling in Wong vs Ark says this:
"Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired *180 by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized
 Being "naturalized" is different from being a native citizen.

Despite this Constitutional scholar Ted Cruz told CNN that the entire issue over whether he is eligible or not is "not important.  He went on to claim that "The very first Congress defined citizens born abroad as natural born citizens."  As shown at the list link above, historian and Founding Father Dave Ramsey, who literally wrote the book "Citizenship" in 1789 SPECIFICALLY outlines that it is to be defined as a child born on US soil to TWO parents who are United States citizens.  The Founders spent quite a bit of effort on this provision wanting protections that a President would have loyalty to our country from the aspects of birth and the upbringing. A "native Texan" is one who was born in Texas.  If you came when you were 5, you are not a native.  Throughout the Founder's writings they use "native" to be equal to born on US soil.  In the 1875 Supreme Court decision Minor vs Happersett the court specifically mentions that the definition of "natural born citizen" is not in the Constitution but
"it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners"
However, Cruz and his apologists often cite the Immigration Act of 1790 labeling foreign born children of US parents "as" natural born citizens. Not only doesn't it say "are natural born citizens," but the Act was completely repealed in 1795 and the language replacing it removed the "natural born" association altogether.  We have the House Committee notes (link above) that explains one reason the Act was repealed and replaced, rather than amended it, was in part due to the potential confusion of future generations to unconstitutionally apply the poorly worded language.  As a "Constitutional scholar" shouldn't Cruz know this?

Another Senator does. 

Current Hawaiian US Senator Mazie Hirono was born to a US citizen mother and a foreign father in a foreign land just like Rafael Ted Cruz.  Her mother brought her to the US when she was seven years old. She defines herself as an immigrant is a "naturalized citizen"  according to her biography

When running for Senate, Ted Cruz ADMITTED to a GOP Assemblywoman and Latino paper that he was not eligible to be President.  His story changed when he saw the opportunity to run for President.

Is Ted Cruz a US Citizen and Eligible to be a US Senator?

What makes the Constitutional questions far worse is the lack of evidence that Ted Cruz or his parents filed the necessary paperwork to confirm his citizenship - much less his NATIVE or Natural Born Citizenship.  As Governor LePage of Maine has stated, his girls were born in Canada, and the US still required documentation for them to retain their American citizenship and legally enter the United States as such when LePage and his wife returned to the United States.  To this day, Cruz has only released his Canadian birth certificate.  By his own admission he was a Canadian citizen until approximately 18 months ago, and yet his immigration records from 1974, his passport application from 1986 and his passport records have been sealed together with his college records.   On what basis could he Constitutionally run for United States Senate without having been a US citizen for 9 years?

This lack of documentation then leads to speculation on what basis did his family come to the United States.  Although unverified, most accept that Cruz's mother was likely a US citizen.  However Rafael Cruz Sr, took Canadian citizenship in 1973 before Ted was born.  He did not become a US citizen until 2005.  On what legal basis did he stay in the United States?  Was he on a renewable visa during that time?  We don't know.  Similarly, without a Consular Report of Birth Abroad filed on Ted's behalf by his mother at a US embassy, there is a strong case that Ted Cruz is possibly not even a US citizen.  Others who have been in the same situation as Ted Cruz, have disclosed their immigration documents and process.  At least one legal group believes the documentation suggests he is an "undocumented alien."

So how can a "Constitutional scholar" determine the laws of citizenship of other legal and illegal immigrants when he has not fully disclosed the proper documentation for his own immigration?

The other Article II issue where Ted Cruz has a clear track record, is that of the appointment by the President for nominees to the Supreme Court.  It was Ted Cruz who recruited, vetted and championed the appointment of John Roberts under George Bush 43.  Roberts, was the deciding vote in a 2012 Supreme Court case that upheld the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate, practically ending the debate about the constitutionality of Obamacare.  Again, Ted Cruz lied in the debates as evidenced by the emails he wrote in 2005 that he had nothing to do with Robert's nomination.  Even without the first hand testimony of Jeb Bush's discussion with his brother, it's clear Cruz worked diligently on making sure Roberts was nominated.  Among Ted's many emails in support of Roberts appointment he wrote:
“one of the very best advocates ever,” who exemplified “how to try to carry out our craft with the highest level of skill and integrity.”
In an op-ed for the National Review he wrote:
“As an individual, John Roberts is undoubtedly a principled conservative, as is the president who appointed him,”
It would be unfair to blame Cruz for the judicial decisions of Roberts when the exalted Ronald Reagan had less than conservative results with Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Conner.  But Cruz must also accept responsibility when he claims he would be better than other candidates in selecting Supreme Court nominees when we see the results of specific efforts he made in a real life situation.

Article Four

US Constitution, Article 4, Section 4:“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;”

James Madison:
“When we are considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautions necessary to guard against abuses … aliens might acquire the right of citizenship, and return to the country from which they came, and evade the laws intended to encourage the commerce and industry of the real citizens and inhabitants of America, enjoying at the same time all the advantages of citizens…”

When Scott Walker announced his campaign for President, he quickly stunned his conservative followers by saying he was open to amnesty for illegal aliens.  The Cruz campaign quickly floated the notion that Ted Cruz was open to some legal status for illegal immigrants. Most illegal immigration like Numbers USA and the National Immigration Council have pointed out how evasive Cruz has been on immigration.  His vigorous arguments against Obama's Executive Amnesty were quickly diluted by his five amendments to the Gang of Eight bill which he testified (below) was trying to improve it to get it passed.  Then, as his campaign began, he tried to spin the notion that these efforts were a "poisoned pill" to get it defeated.  Watch below at how sincere he is attempting to convince his audiences of both sides at different times. 

Few realize the insidious Muslim invasion underway and has been expanded by the Obama administration.  Hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees have been surreptitiously planted in small towns overrunning social services and destroying the culture and the economic well being of US communities that have existed over a hundred years.  It seems their placement is calculated to be in areas so remote from large media venues to go unnoticed.  One woman in Maine who saw this attempt by the Federal Government has become the intellectual leader of the American movement to stop this.
Through her years of research, Corcoran found that Muslim immigration is a form of jihad through colonization called hijra, which she reports dates back to the time of Mohammad. According to Corcoran, the Muslim Brotherhood pursues the hijra strategy.

Corcoran’s sources detail that the migration is actually a religious obligation, in which Muslims are required to spread Islam.

“If you don’t help counter the hijra, we are in my opinion, doomed,” warned Corcoran.
She notes Muammar Qaddafi, the Libyan leader, who said Europe wouldn’t be conquered by guns and swords, but instead by Muslim immigration.
Given the words of James Madison describing the intent of our Constitution toward illegals, Ted Cruz's positions on refugees are worth noting in the video below:

Breitbart, Heritage and other conservative publications have spelled out the Constitutional violation to which Senator Cruz seems oblivious.  One instance from Breitbart:
The constitutional argument is that the federal government, without the permission of these 12 Wilson-Fish states, has “commandeered” state funds by placing refugees in their states, thereby obligating states to pay Medicaid expenses for the refugees, in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
In effect, the federal government is imposing an unfunded federal mandate by regulatory fiat, rather than statutory authority, on these 12 “Wilson-Fish alternative program” states.

Obama has issued 680,000 green cards to immigrants from Muslim countries.  Ted Cruz authored a bill to DOUBLE THAT NUMBER.  In addition to destroying even more US jobs, it seems that Cruz is facilitating the destruction of America through hijad of humanitarian and legal means.  It seems hard to believe that it is intentional.  But he can only either be a dupe of the invasion, a politician who will change his views to whatever his political purposes need (as Carly Fiorina has said), or complicit.  Listen to Jeff Session' Senior Policy Adviser talk about his experiences with Ted Cruz in 2013 during the Immigration battle.  Personal knowledge of what Cruz did to subvert conservative values.

Article Six religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
 Contrary to the Cruz campaign's assertion, the Founders did not institute a litmus test for how "religious" someone is or what precise religion that might be.

Amendment I

Cruz has not rebuked supporters who have tried to silence opponents through a "blacklist" that would go so far as to stop journalists critical of Ted Cruz from gaining employment.  This is Soviet-style tactics, and although not a government activity, against the spirit of our country and the First Amendment.  Cruz isn't proposing a law, but considering the coercion by Cruz supporters from StandByMichelle to Amanda Carpenter without any disavowing from him, one can not assume our liberties will be any safer under his administration should he be elected.  He certainly has not jumped to defend the Constitutional rights of Trump to assemble in private venues without obstruction.

Amendment IV

It has been widely reported that Ted Cruz has the second worst attendance in the Senate (excluding Harry Reid who had health issues.)  His absences exceed the combined total of Feinstein, Boxer and comedian Al Franken.  What is not reported is that he has the worst attendance record of any Senator of the Armed Services Committee, which is well below 50%.  He also has voted "no" against the Defense bill appropriations for three years in a row, which includes pay raises for the military and veteran housing needs.  His objection is that a provision against US citizens from being detained abroad is missing.  He has not been able to lead his fellow Senators to include this in any of the three years bills.  His justification against REAL needs of the military is to vote "no" three times in a row against what IS in the bill and instead votes "no" for what isn't in it.  He had no problem however voting "Yes" to giving Iran - who has declared war against the United States - real nuclear and economic power despite the fact Obama won't call them a terrorist supporting country.  This seems to be an inconsistent application of his principles and hurts the very military he claims he supports.

Amendment VIII

David Brooks, reported on a case of Michael Wayne Haley who was arrested after stealing a calculator from Walmart.  The maximum sentence allowable was two years but a court error had sentenced him to 16 years.  Ted Cruz had the ability and authority to let Haley go for "time served" but instead, Cruz used the case to build his career by arguing an obscure point of law before the Supreme Court.  Ted Cruz made Haley stay in jail the full 16 years for stealing a $1 calculator.  Brooks writes:

The case reveals something interesting about Cruz’s character. Ted Cruz is now running strongly among evangelical voters, especially in Iowa. But in his career and public presentation Cruz is a stranger to most of what would generally be considered the Christian virtues: humility, mercy, compassion and grace. Cruz’s behavior in the Haley case is almost the dictionary definition of pharisaism: an overzealous application of the letter of the law in a way that violates the spirit of the law, as well as fairness and mercy.
It is true that the Supreme Court found in favor of Ted Cruz's argument on behalf of the State of Texas.  The Supreme Court ruling by itself does not justify it as it also found for the right to kill unborn children and call a coercive government mandate to buy health insurance a "tax.".  For a country founded in the footsteps of John Adams, who helped a British soldier be acquitted during the revolution, it certainly is not the spirit - if not the letter of the law.

Amendment X

From Natural News:
Ted Cruz believes that Americans have the right to buy a gun, but not to read a food label informing them of toxic dangers. Apparently GMOs are far more dangerous than guns in the mind of Ted Cruz, because GMOs must be hidden from the public even as guns are readily accessible.
The FDA finally agreed to start testing food for GMO's long after 38 other countries have banned them.  MIT, Purdue and hundreds of other universities have conclusive studies showing correlative, if not causal implications of over 22 diseases from GMO's and Monsanto's Round Up modifications. Ted Cruz calls these scientists and advocates "anti-science zealots."  Ted's vote for Monsanto (who spent enormous amounts of lobbying dollars and efforts)  was actually a issue of state's rights. As Natural News stated:
The only way to get GMOs labeled is to get it done state by state, and these 71 U.S. Senators have now thrown down the gauntlet, stating they believe states have no right to mandate GMO labeling at the local level!

Keep that in mind the next time Rand Paul or Ted Cruz talks about "liberty and justice" Where was their justice on the issue of GMO labeling? How does keeping people in the dark on what they're eating create a more free society?

For God's sake, what does it take to get somebody in Washington D.C. to consistently and unswervingly vote on the side of liberty and freedom every single time?

Amendment VIV

One of the other adjectives Cruz and his supporters attempt to use to define him is "consistent." Below you can see that Ted Cruz went from saying "there is no need to fight" birthright citizenship from the Fourteenth Amendment, and then he follows a few years later saying it should end.

Forget for a moment the conflict of interest which Ted Cruz has as an undocumented (see above) immigrant himself.  It was only after Trump began to get backing from the conservative press to end "anchor babies"(including the National Review which has devoted two entire issues to stopping Trump) that Cruz changed his tune.  This is hardly the sign of a "consistent" Constitutional view.

Ann Coulter explains the crazy argument Cruz is making in his first position statement:
" could anyone — even a not-very-bright person — imagine that granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is actually in our Constitution? I know the country was exuberant after the war, but I really don’t think our plate was so clear that Americans were consumed with passing a constitutional amendment to make illegal aliens’ kids citizens.

Put differently: Give me a scenario — just one scenario — where guaranteeing the citizenship of children born to illegals would be important to Americans in 1868. You can make it up. It doesn’t have to be a true scenario. Any scenario!

You know what’s really bothering me? If someone comes into the country illegally and has a kid, that kid should be an American citizen!

Damn straight they should!

We’ve got to codify that.

No, it isn’t, but that amendment will pass like wildfire!
It’s like being accused of robbing a homeless person. (1) I didn’t; (2) WHY WOULD I DO THAT?

“Luckily,” as FNC’s Shannon Bream put it Monday night, Fox had an “expert” to explain the details: Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox’s senior judicial analyst.
Napolitano at least got the century right. He mentioned the Civil War — and then went on to inform Bream that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to — I quote — “make certain that the former slaves and the native Americans would be recognized as American citizens no matter what kind of prejudice there might be against them.”

In 1884, 16 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, John Elk, who — as you may have surmised by his name — was an Indian, had to go to the Supreme Court to argue that he was an American citizen because he was born in the United States.
He lost. In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not grant Indians citizenship.

So Ted Cruz says that he has looked at "all the arguments" and missed the Supreme Court ruling in 1884?

Amendment XVI

In typical Ted Cruz fashion, he has proposed a VAT tax which is branded as a "Fair Tax."  Forbes was one of the first to call this out.  The difference is that a "fair tax" is transparent to the end buyer collecting the tax from the final seller of the transaction.  The VAT tax buries taxes at every level of the wholesale transaction so the end consumer truly isn't aware of the "pre-tax" value of the purchase.  Why is that important?  As explained by Dan Mitchell of CATO, the VAT tax has accomplished two insidious things everywhere it's been introduced.  It dramatically expands government spending because of the new taxing authority across 'wholesale' businesses that currently do not collect tax.  And it dramatically increases the power, size and authority of the revenue departmentIt also appears to ultimately RAISE income taxes in the countries where it is adopted as well.  The trade-off pushed by most economists in favor of it, is to replace the 16th Amendment with a VAT tax.  And it would terrible.

A VAT tax seems to be prohibited and unconstitutional by Article 1.  Therefore Cruz is either proposing an unconstitutional tax as the basis of his economic policy, or just as dangerous, a Constitutional convention or Amendment process.  The convention is dangerous because it can become a behind-closed-doors bartering system for the politicians to fill an Amendment with "pork" in exchange for their support.  The ratification by the individual states narrows the issue to the proposed language in an up or down vote - but can take years to enact.  And the benefits of initially reducing taxes in the economy are pushed out until it is passed, ratified and put into effect.  Our economy can't wait that long.  And our country would never be able to repeal it once it is in place.


This recount does not take into account the many conservative actions and stances to which Cruz should be duly credited.  He did defend the Second Amendment for the State of Texas.  He did defend religious liberty with the Ten Commandment battle (again in Texas).  He proposed voter registration requirements in the Senate and brought great awareness to the ObamaCare battle.

But there are many mixed successes as well.  He protected US sovereignty as Solicitor General of Texas in one case where Mexico wanted jurisdiction over two killers caught in the United States.  However, his willingness to strip US authority in every foreign transaction through his ObamaTrade bill, he nullifies his right to claim "defense of US sovereignty" to qualify his constitutional credibility.  The same is true with other accomplishments such as introducing the State Marriage Defense Act bill in an attempt to uphold the Constitutional authority of each state to define marriage.  When given the chance to defend it as Solicitor General he refused to fight against gay marriage when requested to do so by the Mayor of Houston. That is not consistent.

Cruz is not a liberal.  But on the merits, There is no objective measure that he wins a title of a consistent Constitutional conservative.


Post a Comment


Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More