Posted on 07/02/2015 9:48:44 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
The following link is to a great interview Ted gave to NPR the other day.
http://www.npr.org/about-npr/418600824/complete-transcript-senator-ted-cruz-interview-with-npr-news
An excerpt where Cruz talks about how the court ruling is not “law”, and does not need to be obeyed except by the specific parties involved in the lawsuit:
INSKEEP (NPR): Which is a great story. But did I just understand you to suggest that state officials should feel no particular obligation to follow the court ruling if they feel it’s illegitimate?
CRUZ: They should feel no obligation to agree that the court ruling is right or is consistent with the Constitution.
This ruling...
INSKEEP: But does that mean they can ignore?
CRUZ: They cannot ignore a direct judicial order. The parties to a case cannot ignore a direct judicial order. But it does not mean that those who are not parties to case are bound by a judicial order.
And that’s what Justice Scalia was saying in his dissent, which is that the court depends upon the remainder of government trusting that it is faithfully applying the law and — and these judges and justices are disregarding their oaths....
What this decision is, and both of these decisions are [gay marriage and obamacare], are decisions from the Washington elites that they know better than the American people, that it doesn’t matter whether the American people agree with them or not, they’re going to force their radical views on them, and that’s — that’s really unfortunate.
INSKEEP: I really want to get to other views in the — other issues in the book, but I feel it’s important to clarify this one thing.
Did I understand you to say just now that as you read the law, as you read our system, this decision is not binding on the entire country, only to the specific states that were named in the — in the suit.
CRUZ: Article III of the Constitution gives the court the authority to resolve cases and controversies. Those cases and controversies, when they’re resolved, when you’re facing a judicial order, the parties to that suit are bound to it. Those who are not parties to the suit are not bound by it.
Now, in subsequent litigation, other courts will follow the precedence of the court, but a judicial order only binds those to whom it is directed, those who are parties to the suit. That’s the way our litigation system works.
Now, this is what Justice Scalia was talking about in his dissent, which is that it has been the case that on a great many issues, others have largely acquiesced, even if they were not parties to the case.
But there’s no legal obligation to acquiesce to anything other than a court judgment. And I would note that the next major battlefield that is going to occur following this marriage decision is religious liberty.....
And there is an intolerance in the left that seeks to force people of faith to knuckle under and embrace, and that’s fundamentally wrong, Steve.
Society has no right to force a Jewish rabbi to perform a Christian wedding. Society has no right to force a Muslim imam to perform a Jewish wedding.
And under the Bill of Rights, under the First Amendment — we’re a nation that was founded by people fleeing religious persecution. And it is fundamentally wrong.
But the next battleground will be efforts, litigation efforts, to persecute those, whether they are Christians or Jews or Muslims or Mormons or people of faith, who believe in a biblical definition of marriage, the union of one man and one woman — the next battle will be the litigation battles to persecute them, to find them.
And I believe — and — and you talked about 2016 — I believe 2016 will be a religious-liberty election, because I have spent almost my entire adult life fighting to defend the religious liberty of every American to follow his or her faith and live according to his conscience.....
Scalia's dissent suggested a more radical possibility, that being that parties (in this case, the states) would ignore a direct order from a court.
We should craft a new immigration law that duplicates the one in Mexico. It is much more restrictive and has penalties that no liberal would believe possible. And they enforce their law very strictly.
How would the liberals counter a law that is the same as our neighbor’s when it comes to regulating immigration?
[[When it’s his chance to speak or to start off, he need only mention that “my opponent often plays the victim when she is confronted about these matters; we can’t have a president that plays the victim on these kind of important matters.”]]
I might add “Because we’ve just had a president who’s played the victim card for 8 years, and folks, you can clearly see for yourself how disastrous not taking responsibility for your own actions can be- We’re in dire straights as a country now because we’ve had a _resident that refuses to admit any wrong doing, and ladies and gentlemen, We can NOT afford another 4 or 8 years of such irresponsibility. I think we as a nation have had enough buck passing, and it’s high time we had a president who’s owrd means something- who will NOT lie to you over and over again, and who will admit mistakes were made instead of falsely blaming the troubles on an internet video that had NOTHING to do with what happened in Benghazi!”
[[INSKEEP (NPR): Which is a great story. But did I just understand you to suggest that state officials should feel no particular obligation to follow the court ruling if they feel it’s illegitimate?
CRUZ: They should feel no obligation to agree that the court ruling is right or is consistent with the Constitution.
INSKEEP: I really want to get to other views in the — other issues in the book, but I feel it’s important to clarify this one thing.
Did I understand you to say just now that as you read the law, as you read our system, this decision is not binding on the entire country, only to the specific states that were named in the — in the suit.
CRUZ: Article III of the Constitution gives the court the authority to resolve cases and controversies. Those cases and controversies, when they’re resolved, when you’re facing a judicial order, the parties to that suit are bound to it. Those who are not parties to the suit are not bound by it.]]
This kinda goes Along the lines of what I was talking about- even though I spaced it about Ted being senator, not gov. (6 hours of hell on earth with that kidney stone- it was brutal!) look to post number 81 in this thread- Ted could be leading the charge, along with the tea party- to encourage states to simply ignore the laws passed recently, and yes, even to pass law forbidding clerks to perform the marriages
This owudl of course entail losing gubmint funding no doubt as the gubmint blackmails the states- but again, there was a case not too long ago where states banded together in concerted effort to ignore federal law, and to ban federal enforcers from enforcing the laws I n their states- and the government had to back down-
“This would of course entail losing gubmint funding no doubt as the gubmint blackmails the states- but again, there was a case not too long ago where states banded together in concerted effort to ignore federal law, and to ban federal enforcers from enforcing the laws In their states- and the government had to back down-”
Yes, of course, states can and have done that, but the fact remains that a sitting USA Senator cannot ‘demand’ anything of local court clerks. They can only ‘suggest’ and hope that states across the land will agree but not ‘demand’. ;-)
did you not read what I wrote-? I stated I spaced it thinking he was governor- Nowhere did I state as senator He should “demand” I even specifically said ‘encourage’-
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.