PolitiJim

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

"

" 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 ,

"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 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 bookSPECIFICALLY outlines that it is to be defined as a. 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 parent s 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.

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

“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.”

“As an individual, John Roberts is undoubtedly a principled conservative, as is the president who appointed him,”

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…”

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.

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.

Article Six

...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Amendment I

Amendment IV

Amendment VIII

Michael Wayne Haley

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.

Amendment X

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 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

"...how 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.

YOU MEAN IT’S NOT ALREADY IN THE CONSTITUTION?



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.”

Huh.

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.

Amendment XVI

Summary

G M T Detect language Afrikaans Albanian Arabic Armenian Azerbaijani Basque Belarusian Bengali Bosnian Bulgarian Catalan Cebuano Chichewa Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Traditional) Croatian Czech Danish Dutch English Esperanto Estonian Filipino Finnish French Galician Georgian German Greek Gujarati Haitian Creole Hausa Hebrew Hindi Hmong Hungarian Icelandic Igbo Indonesian Irish Italian Japanese Javanese Kannada Kazakh Khmer Korean Lao Latin Latvian Lithuanian Macedonian Malagasy Malay Malayalam Maltese Maori Marathi Mongolian Myanmar (Burmese) Nepali Norwegian Persian Polish Portuguese Punjabi Romanian Russian Serbian Sesotho Sinhala Slovak Slovenian Somali Spanish Sundanese Swahili Swedish Tajik Tamil Telugu Thai Turkish Ukrainian Urdu Uzbek Vietnamese Welsh Yiddish Yoruba Zulu Afrikaans Albanian Arabic Armenian Azerbaijani Basque Belarusian Bengali Bosnian Bulgarian Catalan Cebuano Chichewa Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Traditional) Croatian Czech Danish Dutch English Esperanto Estonian Filipino Finnish French Galician Georgian German Greek Gujarati Haitian Creole Hausa Hebrew Hindi Hmong Hungarian Icelandic Igbo Indonesian Irish Italian Japanese Javanese Kannada Kazakh Khmer Korean Lao Latin Latvian Lithuanian Macedonian Malagasy Malay Malayalam Maltese Maori Marathi Mongolian Myanmar (Burmese) Nepali Norwegian Persian Polish Portuguese Punjabi Romanian Russian Serbian Sesotho Sinhala Slovak Slovenian Somali Spanish Sundanese Swahili Swedish Tajik Tamil Telugu Thai Turkish Ukrainian Urdu Uzbek Vietnamese Welsh Yiddish Yoruba Zulu Text-to-speech function is limited to 100 characters Options : History : Help : FeedbackClose

Posted in: