Why I am Voting for Ted Cruz: Constitutional Conservatism
This is the
first—and most important—reason that I am voting for him. Immigration policy, a pro-life stance,
thoughts on trade and defense are all important litmus tests for the
Presidency. They are things the
President should do. Being an ardent, trained, Constitutional scholar, though,
allows Cruz to know what the President can do.
Cruz’s website has a list of his Constitutional
bona fides. Of note is the Supreme Court case Medellin v. Texas. In this
case, Cruz argued that President Bush’s memorandum stating that the United
States would “discharge its international obligations under the decision of the
International Court of Justice in [Avena], by having State courts give effect
to the decision in accordance with general principles of comity in cases filed
by the 51 Mexican nationals addressed in that decision” was not a binding, enforceable,
federal law that could pre-empt state judiciary practices. In other words: Cruz
successfully argued against Presidential over-reach of power and protected American sovereignty. Please note the President in question was
Republican George W. Bush—whom Cruz had worked for previously. Yet despite his former employment by, and
party affiliation with, the President, Cruz defended the rights of state courts
against illegal Presidential actions.
If he is willing to fight the man whom he helped elect to
the Presidency in order to defend the rights of states and citizens, that’s the
kind of “Washington-outsider” I want as my President.
Cruz is a brilliant man.
He knows the Constitution, and Constitutional law, better than any
candidate running for office. He has argued cases involving religious liberty,
2nd Amendment rights, US and state sovereignty, and government
over-reach.
In his arguments and speeches involving government
over-reach, Cruz has demonstrated dedication to a political ideal long suppressed in this
country: That the rights of Americans are not handed down by the government but
endowed by their Creator. Government
exists to protect rights, not decide them and then parcel them out to select
sub-sets of the citizenry.
I have always raged against the “gimme voters” that dominate
the Presidential election cycles. The
President cannot make jobs, give you a cell phone, or prevent natural disasters. He cannot
even change your tax rate. The Constitution lists very specific duties of the
Presidency. You will not find a single
mention about job creation in Article II—unless you are a justice or
ambassador. In matters of trade and
foreign policy the President has certain powers but they are tied to approval
by the Senate. This is why I’ve always
said that Congressional and local elections are more important than the
Presidential race—Congress controls the pocketbook. Their decisions have far more meaningful
impacts on our day-to –day lives.
Now what a President can do is exert influence on the
Congress in order to “push through” legislation. The most recent example of this process would
be Obamacare. The majority of Congressional members who voted on the bill had
not even read it—but they decided their vote based on pressure from the
President and his appointees. Let’s touch base to the point made earlier: Ted
Cruz argued for states rights against an order by a Republican President. Here is a man whose loyalty is to the
Constitution and the people it is meant to defend. Given all of his previous
works and words, I trust that President Cruz would not harangue and cajole the
Congress into an act which violated those principles. Cruz trusts the American
people to decide what is best for their families. Trust is two way street, but DC politics have
turned it into a one-way alley for too many years.
I trust Ted Cruz to live by his oath of office: to defend
and uphold the Constitution of the United States.
