Glad Trump got Zero, but who's laughing about Cruz? I'm not. Nothing funny about where Cruz stands when it comes to the Constitution. Anyone on this forum supporting Cruz for any reason is spitting on the Constitution.
The Fourth Amendment
In May of 2015, Rand Paul led the fight to block renewal of the Patriot Act, which among other things violated the Fourth Amendment by allowing the NSA to collect metadata in bulk. The re-authorization of the Patriot Act was presented in the form of the USA Freedom Act (which Cruz supported), which while an improvementdid not sufficiently protect the Fourth Amendment. On this issue, Paul stood resolute while Cruz continued the status-quo in the name of compromise.
The Tenth Amendment
Rand Paul has been consistent in his belief that, in accordance with the enumerated powers and the Tenth Amendment, states are allowed to formulate their own drug policies. Ted Cruz, on the other hand, has been wishy-washy. He currently supports state authority on the marijuana issue, butpreviously blasted*President Obama for not enforcing federal drug laws. Mark this down as a flip-flop for Cruz.
The Second Amendment
Rand Paul has always been a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. For the most part, Ted Cruz has been as well. However, Cruz did demonstrate some weakness on the issue when he*proposedstrengthening*the federal background check system, which is unconstitutional.
The Fourteenth*Amendment
If one is to read the Constitution according to original intent, which is the honest method, then the purpose and meaning of the authors must be considered the final word. As Rand Paul mentioned during the presidential debate, the authors of the birthright citizenship never intended for it to apply to illegal aliens.*He is correct. However, Ted Cruz has adopted a revisionist reading that was likely taught to him in law school.*According to Cruz, birthright citizenship applies to illegal aliens, despite the intentions of the authors.
Treaty*Clause
Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution contains the Treaty Clause. It makes clear that 2/3 of Senators must agree to treaties to secure passage. On the issue of Trade Promotion Authority, or TPA, Rand Paul was opposed on the grounds that it ceded Congressional power to the President. On the other hand, Cruz*strongly campaignedfor TPA both in theory and in practice (he only voted against the final bill due to amendments that were added). TPA flagrantly violates the Treaty Clause, as it removes the 2/3 majority requirement and instead requires only a simple majority for passage. Supporters of TPA would argue that it doesn’t facilitate treaties but international agreements. Such arguments are dishonest at best. Any agreements with foreign countries*must be considered treaties.
Treason Clause
As Rand Paul has pointed out, we should try people for treason, as it is one of the four federal crimes spelled out in the Constitution. The Treaty Clause says that “No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.” But Ted Cruz has introduced a bill that would strip the citizenship of U.S. citizens who join ISIS. On the surface that sounds reasonable, however the question at hand is procedure. When in doubt, following the Constitution is the best option, and it already spells out how to deal with those who join the enemy.
http://theconservatarianreview.com/6...than-ted-cruz/
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by CPUd
Connect With Us