Is there any doubt that America’s Constitution is under attack? For decades, the power and intent of the Constitution have been whittled away by liberals and others who do not value the foundation of this country. For that reason, we must send constitutional conservatives to Washington. This is not the time to send people who do not have the experience defending the constitution. It is not the time to send a person who needs to use this as a learning experience for the first couple of years.
Ted Cruz, does not just talk the talk. He has exhibited a willingness to defend the constitution and liberty for all Americans on multiple occasions. He is the freedom fighter we must send to Washington. I’ve listed my reasons below, why my vote will be cast for Ted Cruz.
1. Defended US Sovereignty
Successfully represented Texas before the U.S. Supreme Court in Medellin v. Texas, which upheld U.S. sovereignty and held that the World Court cannot bind the United States justice system and the President cannot order the state courts to obey the World Court.
2. He has defended our second amendment right to bear arms
Ted authored a brief on behalf of 31 states supporting the second amendment right to keep and bear arms. The ban on firearms was struck down in a 5-4 landmark decision before the U.S. Supreme Court?
3. Ted Cruz fought to defend our religious freedom.
Successfully defended the constitutionality of the Texas Ten Commandments monument, winning in a 5-4 landmark decision before the U.S. Supreme Court, setting an important national precedent for the right to display similar monuments.
4. The Tenth Amendment is one of the keys to preserving the balance and vision for our countr
y by the founding fathers. For years, Ted has defended this key amendment.
Tenth Amendment language: The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution’s principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved to the States or the people.
Ted Cruz has consistently championed the 10th amendment, speaking and writing nationally on the virtues of federalism and why excessive regulation and federal government intrusion threaten to destroy America’s free-market economy and the American Dream.
5. Ted opposed the TSA groping at airports
This is an invasion of privacy, that Mr. Cruz’s opponent was afraid to tackle. Cruz said that we should look to Israel and follow their example. “Instead of looking for terrorists, we’re looking for weapons. It’s an ill-advised approach that hurts citizens.”
6. He was unafraid and stood up to protect our efforts for energy independence in America, at a time when the administration was fiercely undermining America’s efforts.
Authored an amicus brief on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and a diverse coalition of 29 Gulf Coast chambers of commerce and industry groups in Hornbeck Offshore Services v. Salazar, in opposition to the Obama Interior Department’s moratorium on offshore exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. One week later, the Fifth Circuit agreed, and ruled against the moratorium.
7. Reinforced the words: “All men are created equal” as written in the Declaration of Independence. There is no place for hate or bigotry in America.
Ted authored a U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief on behalf of 10 states in Rahn v. Robb, urging the Supreme Court to grant certiorari and reverse a decision of the Eight Circuit allowing the Ku Klux Klan to participate in Kansas’s “Adopt-A-Highway” program.
8. Ted Cruz signed the Contract from America.
The Contract from America, clause 4. Enact Fundamental Tax Reform: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words–the length of the original Constitution.
9. Mr. Cruz took a definite stand on Border Security.
He has worked on efforts to increase penalties for felons who enter the country illegally. Ted authored a U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief on behalf of 10 states in Lopez v. Gonzales, urging the strictest enforcement of laws punishing those with prior felony convictions who entered the country illegally.
Having met and spoken with Mr. Cruz on multiple occasions, prior to his campaign, I can assure you of one thing. No one is more passionate or driven to defend America’s constitution. There are many more illustrations of his commitment and efforts on behalf of our constitution and liberty. In fact, there were too many for one article.
What can you do to help?
If you are in Texas: I urge each of you to vote. Early voting begins July 23. Election Day is on July 31.
If you are in other states: Fight to take back the Senate. Go to www.tedcruz.org and help to call and get out the vote!Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
Today a Federal Judge in Florida ruled Obamacare is unconstitutional due to the individual mandate. Because the mandate is so integral to all of the Obamacare law, he suggested the entire document is not valid. Unfortunately, we have a few years more before this will likely reach the Supreme Court. Until that time, many other dictates will be handed down to insurance companies, the people, and the Corporations that provide healthcare insurance to employees.
All of this does not change the fact, the system is broken. The states who are loudly protesting the intrusion of the federal government into healthcare, must continue finding solutions at state level to avoid this overreach by the Federal government. Below you will find a summation of various state options that I have been researching over the past months. To protect state rights and the rights of individuals, one must strengthen the ability of the states to provide the appropriate solutions for their citizens.
Today, I am sharing an idea posited by the Honorable Ted Cruz, of the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) and Mario Loyola. Mr. Cruz was a featured speaker at the yearly conference of the TPPF in Austin, and a lot of education on state rights/powers was gained from this remarkable statesman.
The latest policy paper focuses on the Interstate Compacts in Our Constitution. An interstate compact is the agreement between two or more states of the United States of America. Many interstate compacts have been created through the years. Our Constitution dictates specific “behaviors” if you will, of the Compacts. Interstate Compacts can regulate matters within the enumerated powers of the federal government that require congressional consent. In prior instances of Interstate Compacts, it was accomplished by a bill or resolution that was subsequently presented to the President for his signature. Yet, in other cases it has been an “implied” consent.
The following links are just a few examples to familiarize my readers with the numerous ways the Interstate Compacts have been used in America. Here are just a few examples of current Interstate Compacts that are successfully working today:
Operating agencies created by interstate compact
- Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_States_Marine_Fisheries_Commission
- Colorado River Compact (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah Wyoming, Nevada, Arizona, and California) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_River_Compact
- Driver License Compact (all States except Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan, Tennessee, and Wisconsin)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_License_Compact
- Education Commission of the States (all States (except Washington), three territories, and Washington, D.C.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Commission_of_the_States
- Great Lakes Commission (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lakes_Commission
- Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission (Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_States_Marine_Fisheries_Commission
- Northwest Power and Conservation Council (Oregon, Washington, Montana, and Idaho) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Power_and_Conservation_Council
- Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (New Jersey and New York) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Authority_of_New_York_and_New_Jersey
- Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority (Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Metropolitan_Area_Transportation_Authority
Looking at the links above, it is apparent there can be any number of reasons to institute an interstate compact. Could they be used for common sense health exchanges? Could they be used for specific healthcare options that are supported at state level? The potential for this solution is vast, as many applications can be used within this framework.
Refer to the policy perspective from the Honorable Ted Cruz and Mario Loyola for more detail on the use of interstate compacts:
The use of state compacts has been used primarily when a group of states have something in common that needs regulation at a state level. We now have multiple approaches to take back the power of the state. The biggest question arises because there doesn’t appear to be any definition of how deeply a compact can intrude on the federal law.
When the federal government is all powerful, citizenry lose the ability to hold them accountable. Policies should reflect the values of those citizens. The interstate compact is a tool for states to fight back against Federal overreach and more specifically Obamacare. It is the right of a state to determine their course.
Here are the links to my prior work on the Tenth Amendment and Nullification as well:
Tenth Amendment Rights Townhall (Part 3)
Tenth Amendment Rights Townhall (Part 2)
We are Americans, and perseverance is one of our finest traits. The Constitution and our laws have provided us with solutions that protect the states and it’s people. Now is the time to stop the erosion of those state rights by utilizing the tools given in our rule of law.
“I consider the foundation of the Federal Constitution as laid on this ground: That “all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States of to the people.” (Tenth Amendment) To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.” Thomas JeffersonRead Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Texas Supreme Court Justice Don R. Willett, was given a daunting task at the recent Tenth Amendment Townhall in Plano. He would deliver “The Tenth Amendment: A Brief Legal and Historical Primer”. This overview would serve the audience well as a basis of understanding for presentations to be given for the remainder of the day.
His opening observation was that the Texas Constitution is very large compared to the United States Constitution. The US Constitution is relatively brief and has had few amendments. The Constitution was written with a sparing number of words, which would wield a great deal of power and thought behind each component of the document. These men were creating the foundation for a new nation.
The 10th amendment is short and to the point. Of all the states ratifying amendments, the 10th was the only one proposed by each of the states. Liberty and localism work together. The constitution takes the notion of we the people very seriously and defines it distinctly.
Madison designed the elegant 10th amendment with a very clear, brief definition. It reads as follows: “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.”
Justice Willett proceeded to give us examples of how court decisions have not always upheld the state rights identified in the Tenth Amendment. In fact, there have been multiple court decisions through the years which permitted the Federal Government to trump state’s rights. Following are a few of those examples given by Justice Willett.
New York vs US
This Supreme court case set a precedent that the federal government cannot “order States into the service of federal regulatory purpose” via funding. It is a key decision that has been mentioned with regard to Tenth Amendment Rights.
The Brady Act
The Brady Act violated the 10th amendment as it required an action to be done. This act was a Congressional order for the states to take an action because of an order from the Federal Government. The majority of five justices on the US Supreme Court ruled that the interim provisions of the Brady Bill are unconstitutional. In his opinion, Justice Scalia refers to the “dual sovereignty” established by the U.S. Constitution that federalism is built upon. His opinion states that the Framers designed the Constitution to allow Federal regulation of international and interstate matters, not internal matters reserved to the State Legislatures.
Nationalism trumps federalism….
Roe v Wade
In this case, a woman in Texas wanted to have an abortion. Texas had a law that an abortion could only be done in cases where the mother’s life is in jeopardy. The woman sued the Texas State Attorney General, Henry Wade on behalf of herself and all other Texas women who wanted to have abortions in the state of Texas.
Blackmun traced the history of abortion laws back to the Hippocratic Oath and concluded that laws proscribing the ending of a pregnancy in its early stages were enacted relatively recently. He cited the precedent of previous cases upholding the legality of contraceptives and used the right to privacy found in the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment to strike down both the Texas law and a Georgia law involved in a companion case.
US vs Lopez
This was the first United States Supreme Court case since the Great Depression to set limits upon the power used by Congress under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. Lopez raised serious questions as to how far the Court might be willing to go in implementing judicial safeguards against federal encroachments on state sovereignty
Five days later the court struck it down that the states would have the ability to mandate term limits on the Congress. The court has been supportive of the Tenth Amendment at times and items such as this one arise and they restrict the interpretation of the Tenth Amendment.
Justice Thomas warns the court has come close to turning the 10th amendment on it’s head.
The progressives state the use of the 10th amendment is simply preventing progress. They view people who talk about it the same as if they are “truthers” or “birthers”. The time is now for the states to assert their rights under the Tenth Amendment. This is the way to stop the tsunami of Federal mandates that are headed for the states and it’s citizens.
“But as the plan of the [Constitutional] convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States.” Alexander Hamilton
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
On Monday, February 15, I attended an educational meeting in Plano Texas. The Townhall was hosted at the Plano Centre by the Texas Conservative Coalition. What is this event all about? The Tenth Amendment Town Hall, was organized with a definitive set of goals in mind for the people of Texas. This Townhall would explore solutions to restore Texas’ constitutional rights, and how to limit the growing power and influence of the federal government.
Who is the Texas Conservative coalition? This group was founded in 1985 to further the cause of conservatives in the Texas Legislature. They believe in limited government, free enterprise, family values, and individual liberties. Throughout the years they have been instrumental in proposing and passing conservative legislation on behalf of the people of Texas.
The formal program lasted from 8:30am to 1:30, but several speakers stayed beyond this time to answer questions from the audience. Due to the importance and volume of the material, I will be doing a series on what we learned. For those interested in the future of our country, and in being fully educated on the options….there is only one thing to say! Anytime you see an educational event sponsored by the Texas Conservative Coalition – run, don’t walk! It will be the best use of time you could possibly imagine.
The welcome and introduction was given by State Representative Brandon Creighton of Conroe. He introduced Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott who gave the opening address. Attorney General Abbott proceeded to share with us where we are as far as state rights and the things he is currently involved in, on behalf of Texas. He made it very clear that Texas is proactively involved in protecting their citizens.
Our lives are not defined by how we are challenged, but how we respond to those challenges. Per Greg Abbott, many of us were gathered at this event to determine how to take our country back. He is right. It is up to us to define our future by our response to the current challenges. Furthermore, the Attorney General had a real life example of how choosing our personal reaction to challenges can make all the difference. He was paralyzed by an accident several years ago. This was a defining moment in his life. Fortunate for Texans, he clearly rose to that challenge and has served the people of Texas well. The time is now for Americans to choose how they rise to the current challenges in the nation today.
On March 2, the Texas Independence Day, Greg Abbott, will be arguing in front of the US Supreme Court on behalf of many states. He will be defending the right of the individuals in the United States to own and bear arms. This right is given to us by our founding fathers in the documents which our entire history is based upon.
Greg Abbott moved on to discuss the unconstitutionality of buying votes as witnessed in the Nebraska compromise. The Attorney General brought 2 letters with him to share with us that had been written and signed by himself and several other attorney generals in various states. These letters were sent to President Obama and to many elected officials in Washington. The letters are very straightforward in their content. It stated if the Nebraska deal goes through, Greg Abbott and the others will bring a lawsuit against the US. Ben Nelson of Nebraska was the first one to contact the Attorney General to ask him, ” Please call off the dogs”. Attorney General Greg Abbott is very certain of the illegal aspects of the deal to Nebraska. It violates notions of equal protection and of the 10th amendment rights. For this reason, there are a large number of states who have banded together and vowed to bring a lawsuit against the US if the Nebraska compromise moves forward.
Historically and literally the mandating of requiring people to buy a service such as healthcare has never been done. This is a clear violation of the constitution. Congress has only limited powers as defined by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Congress is now maintaining they have this right due to the commerce clause. This is not the appropriate definition of this clause. It cannot mandate an action that must occur. For example, this would be as if we required everyone to buy car insurance whether they owned a car or not. Another example would be if everyone would be required to buy a car to use the cash for clunkers program. This is the issue of our time. If this is upheld as constitutional, it will mean the constitution will no longer mean the same thing. It will mean the Congress will trump the 10th amendment and have the ability to expand their own power.
The following quote given by Abbott struck a chord with me and I wanted to share it. “Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction”. – Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas 1803 The page becomes more blank with every abuse of the constitution and it’s powers granted to the states and the Federal Government.
The constitution does not dictate the President is supposed to give us healthcare, Cap N Trade, or many of the other pieces of legislation currently being considered. The President’s job is to protect and preserve the constitution. We WILL take the issues before the court if they continue the unprecedented expansion of government.
The crowd rose to their feet cheering. Our Attorney General understands completely what is going on, and is taking every step to stop it.
This concludes part one of my series. Stay tuned for the upcoming articles where we cover nullification, requiring Congress to balance the Budget, and State Actions to Restore the Tenth Amendment among other things.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )