If my frustration level wasn't high enough with all the insanity of Congress, "His Lowness," and the Supreme Court (In)Justices, the email from Mark Campbell at Cruz for President appearing in my inbox exploded all the lit bulbs on the Christmas tree. First of all, I have not subscribed to anything from Ted Cruz, any of his organizations or any political posts from any political party or individual. Secondly, this email wants me to read some op-ed by Ted Cruz when he had not the decency to answer a letter I wrote to him. Talk about nerve.
Being that curiosity got the better of me, I read it. It's no secret that I hold fast to Cruz being ineligible to occupy the office of the presidency, along with Rubio, Jindal, and Santorum. I certainly have not hidden the fact I view Cruz as a hypocrite when talking about constitutionality when he seeks an office he is constitutionally ineligible to hold. I have maintained Obama is ineligible as well and impeachment is the remedy for his crimes.
However, there are points Cruz makes in his op-ed on which I agree. I disagree with Cruz on others. Regardless, it's an interesting piece.
Cruz hit the nail on the head when he wrote in reference to the Supreme Court rulings, "Sadly, the political reaction from the leaders of my party is all too predictable. They will pretend to be incensed, and then plan to do absolutely nothing."
Repeatedly, McConnell and Boehner, Obama's Senate and House "witch" boys respectively, sell out the people and their constituents in favor of the latest scheme by "His Lowness." Boehner seeks retribution against those who "go against the grain." McConnell might as well be "Reid lite." Establishment Republicans huff and puff then cough out some excuse to shirk their constitutional duty or initiate some lawless remedy declaring it some triumph the people should bow to in gratitude. The remedy stagnates, goes nowhere as intended and people forget about it as they paid their homage like the good little sheeple.
Not surprisingly, Cruz stated he introduced a constitutional amendment to "preserve the authority of elected state legislatures to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and also legislation stripping the federal courts of jurisdiction over legal assaults on marriage."
Seriously? The Constitution already limits the authority of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The federal government holds no authority over marriage according to the Constitution. The States and the people retain that power through the republican form of government guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America to each State. Each branch of government usurped authority not granted to it by the Constitution. An additional amendment will not remedy that. It is another amendment Congress and the "SCROTUS," I mean SCOTUS, will ignore or find some way to funnel around it.
Congress ignores impeachment as a remedy -- Boehner doesn't agree with it and Gowdy thinks we haven't "met" Joe Biden. The Supreme Court (In)Justices upheld continued violations of the Fourth Amendment and gutted part of the First Amendment while almost nullifying the Tenth. Cruz needs to explain how another amendment will bind these usurpers as the phrases "shall not be violated" and "shall not be infringed" mean nothing to what sits in Washington.
He contends the 2016 Presidential election has evolved into an Obamacare referendum. One could argue that. However, Cruz believes a Republican president will sign legislation repealing the monstrosity. That may be true but Congress first has to "repeal" it. Good luck with that as repeal might be possible with a super majority of Republicans who do not want to replace it with some Republican version that still involves government in health care. Surely, he is not indicating "repeal by unilateral fiat." Republicans hold a majority now and look what's happening. It's like watching a monkey try to wind his behind while scratching his watch.
Cruz is spot on saying the Court overstepped its constitutional authority as its lust for legislative power expands. Not only is the Constitution under assault from the executive, Cruz indicates the Court has it in its crosshairs as well. Of course, Congress helped in the assault. It makes sense that one corrupt branch cannot hold another corrupt branch in check. Right now, all branches are corrupt and have no desire to reign in the others. Bribes, blackmail and benefits bought and paid for treason in our government. The remedy of impeachment becomes null under those circumstances. It's asking a criminal to condemn another criminal. Yeah, that's not how the "code" works.
I disagree with Cruz when he indicated the Framers underestimated the thirst of legislative power of the judiciary and overestimated the backbone of Congress. The Framers understood it well. The Constitution established that the people would elect members of the House of Representatives while the State legislatures selected Senate members. As long as the people elected representatives to government who were honorable men and State legislatures chose Senators well, the government under the Constitution would remain in check.
The Seventeenth Amendment changed the appointment of Senators by State legislatures to election by the people in 1913. The States relinquished their influence in federal government by ratifying an amendment proposed by Congress. The Framers could not anticipate the States would give up their voice and a measure to be a check on power.
What the Framers also did not count on was the infiltration of ideology antithetical to our founding permeating through the population along with the increased immorality and depravity of society as a whole. John Adams stated it best when he said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people; it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Politicians holding antithetical ideology actively sought elected positions in federal government to advance their anti-Constitution agenda. Our Framers placed faith in future generations to maintain the freedom they purchased through great sacrifice. They believed a moral and religious people would prevail to preserve the republic. Looking at Washington, DC, we witness our failure.
They recognized the potential for all three branches to descend into corruption, hence their recognition of the "duty of the people to throw off" despotic government as outlined in the Declaration of Independence, while securing the right of the people to maintain the means through the specifics of the Second Amendment.
Cruz suggests "judicial retention elections" for the SCOTUS modeled after the twenty states that have enacted such laws to hold their judiciary accountable. In order to do this, Cruz proposes an amendment to the Constitution subjecting the SCOTUS members be elected every eight years, by the people and the States, be adopted. Actually, it is not a bad idea. However, it's another amendment subject to be ignored or usurped through the ballot box.
Cruz contends that if "Congress does not act, passing the constitutional amendments needed to correct this lawlessness, then the movement from the people for an Article V Convention of the States -- to propose the amendments directly -- will grow stronger and stronger." I'm sure Cruz is aware that amendments to the Constitution are ratified by the approval of three quarters of the States and not passed by Congress. I do agree all of this could give momentum to the Article V Con-Con, which is a scary thought.
Politicians dance around the big elephant in the room when it comes to government -- big corporations, big bankers, Wall Street moguls, Lobbyist and insurrectionists like George Soros bought, paid off and/or blackmailed members of government, Congress and Presidents. Of course, those might be termed the "shadow government." There is a problem when an elected official enters the DC machine with a meager lifestyle and exits as multi-millionaires. Add the ingredients of ballot manipulation and voter fraud and the result is what is happening in the District of Corruption.
The answer to this problem remains enforcement of the Constitution. However, to reestablish the tenets of the Constitution means ridding the money and special interest influence over Congress. It requires a "gutting" of the pork of government back to its foundational roots -- decommissioning unconstitutional alphabet agencies and every regulation and rule established. The Federal Reserve needs to go as well. With the advent of technology, members of both chambers of Congress can remain in their home State and district where constituents have supervisory capacity making it harder for big money to influence many at one time in a short time frame.
The influence is not limited to the federal government as it is present at the State and local level as well. Maybe not as much, but it is still there. The same could apply to the State chambers -- keep them in the district for constituent oversight.
The Framers understood the concept "keep it simple, stupid" before it became a meme. Unfortunately, the concept escapes the politicians, political hacks and charlatans of today, along with recognizing and identifying an elephant in the room. You would think they would notice the smell.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.