As recently as last summer (2015), Mr. Cruz let it be known his style of "Constitutional Conservatism" is more radical than conservative. Seems Mr. Cruz believes he knows better than the geniuses that designed our Constitution, readily substituting his beliefs for those of Madison, Hamilton and other Framers. But how? Take a look at his position as it relates to the Supreme Court. Instead of embracing the true conservative notion that the Constitution must be looked upon as a "static" document only to be interpreted in accordance with its original intent, Cruz maintains that as times change, so should the authority of the High Court. Not exactly what the Media has been telling us? The guy supports Congress altering the Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court whenever he sees it worthy - in other words - when the Court rules in any way that may upset his sense of democracy. Proof Rubin, we want proof!
Well, as we all know, the Framers intentionally established the High Court wherein Justices held their positions for life tenure. It was the intent of the Framers that such long tenure would lift them from the sway of political movements and temporary attempts by politicos to influence the "mob" against the Civil Liberties and Civil Rights of the minority (See Hamilton's Federalist #78). But what does Cruz advocate? Remove this protection from "mob influences" by asserting the High Court's justices face "retention elections" in order to keep their positions. Why? Because political influences can shape the decisions of the Court, just as they currently do at the State level. Instead of having justices ruling on matters strictly based upon their judicial temperament and philosophy, Cruz would rather see them acting in accordance with the wishes of the electorate. How can I make this claim? According to The Hill; "Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) wants to amend the Constitution to subject Supreme Court justices to periodic public retention elections.
“Much to my great disappointment, this past term the court crossed a line and continued its long dissent
into lawlessness to a level I believe demands action,” he said during a Senate committee hearing on
Wednesday. “The court today is not a body of jurists. It is not a body of judges following the law, but
rather it has declared itself in effect a super legislature.” Cruz, who chairs the Judiciary subcommittee
on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts, called the hearing to discuss what
options the American people have to “rein in judicial tyranny,” following the court’s recent decision
this past term. (See: http://thehill.com/regulation/248872-cruz-calls-for-retention-elections-for-supreme-court-justices). How many Americans actually would describe the Supreme Court as "Lawless?" Do Americans want a president who considers the High Court "Tyrants" whenever they rule in any way that he personally disagrees? Could "President Cruz" then simply ignore SCOTUS rulings he disagrees with? Now that the High Court has received its first lawsuit challenging Mr. Cruz's eligibility to even be president (born in Canada), would Cruz as president demand the decision - if against his interest - be tossed out or the High Court's jurisdiction be altered?
Most folks are unaware that Article III of the Constitution allows Congress to control the Supreme Court's Appellate Jurisdiction - but what if the Court considers a question of his eligibility to be president under their "Original Jurisdiction" which would make it outside Congress' purview? Would Cruz demand a Constitutional Amendment to alter Article III to suit his personal agenda? Do Americans agree that the Supreme Court's Constitutional authority be diminished?
Cruz certainly would when it comes to rulings that affect his religious beliefs - despite the fact that the First Amendment protects those of all religions from the beliefs of one religion (see Establishment Clause) - Cruz thinks his religion is supreme and that this Country must adhere to his beliefs - while forcing others to comply. How does he get folks to believe he means no others harm? By claiming America is a Christian country founded on Judeo-Christian morality and beliefs. Except once elected, his position is more closer aligned to the evangelical beliefs of his father - to the exclusion of ALL other religions (including Judaism as well as those that freely choose not to believe in any religion). In an article in the Religious News Service ("RNS") Cruz proclaimed “...we’ll turn this country around. We can turn our country around, but only if the body of Christ rises up.” (See http://www.religionnews.com/2016/01/31/cruz-religion-evangelical-religious-liberty/). And what part of our country does he refer to that needs "turning around" and how does he propose to do this in accordance with the First Amendment? Does he plan to push to amend it too? Cruz believes we need a "Balanced Budget Amendment", but has he proposed one yet while serving in the Senate? He certainly has pushed to shut down the government on more than one occasion (the last one costing the US Taxpayer $Billions, (See http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fiscal-shutdown-costs-idUSKCN0RT1U320150929).
He also wants to Amend the Constitution to impose term limits for Congress. Not a bad idea - but shouldn't we tackle campaign finance reform before we allow interest groups to fund a flurry of potential new candidates inexperienced in the ways of Washington? Congress is already engaged in a constant campaign to win re-election. What would it be like to have new candidates for Congress jockeying for financial support and at the same time Cruz's blessing? Again, let's tackle campaign finance before we address Article III, The First Amendment, Term Limits for Congress or the Court and a balanced budget. Perhaps we should insist that all politicians be immediately terminated if caught in a lie - now that's an Amendment I would support!
Just because Cruz is not Trump certainly should not be a reason to vote for the guy. Personally, I view Cruz as much more dangerous to America than Trump - despite all of Trump's cynical political rhetoric. Anyone that has been caught lying in his campaign should be given extra scrutiny. Isn't this what Republicans have been demanding all along when it comes to Hillary Clinton? If it's good for the goose, it must be good for the gander!
As President Andrew Jackson once wrote; "All the rights secured to the citizens under the Constitution are worth nothing, and a mere bubble, except guaranteed to them by an independent and virtuous Judiciary." Let's keep our Judiciary independent as the Framers intended. Have a great week!