Posted on 09/04/2015 7:30:25 AM PDT by Isara
When Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) condemns President Obama – a frequent occurrence – the far-right national candidate often emphasizes the rule of law. Cruz doesn’t just think the president is wrong; he thinks Obama is a tyrannical dictator who flouts legal norms.
“The pattern we’ve seen under President Obama, disregarding the law, is really one of the most troubling aspects of this presidency,” Cruz said last year. “When he disagrees with the law … he simply refuses to comply with it.” The Republican senator added that the president is “lawless.”
But that was in 2014. In 2015, Cruz sees Kentucky clerk Kim Davis ignoring court orders, ignoring Supreme Court rulings, and ignoring her oath of office – and the GOP presidential candidate sees her as some kind of hero. In a written statement released late yesterday:
“Today, judicial lawlessness crossed into judicial tyranny. Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith. This is wrong. This is not America.
“I stand with Kim Davis. Unequivocally. I stand with every American that the Obama Administration is trying to force to choose between honoring his or her faith or complying with a lawless court opinion.”
Cruz’s statement went on to argue, “Those who are persecuting Kim Davis believe that Christians should not serve in public office. That is the consequence of their position. Or, if Christians do serve in public office, they must disregard their religious faith–or be sent to jail.”
He added that Davis should face no consequences for brazenly defying federal court orders she doesn’t like.
I’m not sure what’s worse: the possibility that Cruz actually believes this nonsense or the fact that Cruz expects Americans to take his arguments seriously.
---
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.com ...
Well the Prog's want to throw that out the window.
Do what I say, OR ELSE!
Fidel Castro or Walter Ulbricht is who they look to for inspiration.
Not John Adams or Thomas Jefferson.
You can add the 10th Amendment to that as well.
BWhahahahaha.
When Obama ignores the Defense of Marriage Act, it’s courageous. Cruz’s support of someone, though - that’s “indifference to the rule of law.”
Laughable.
What’s happening to Ms. Davis is appalling.
As a member of TC’s NH Leadership Team, I put in a suggestion that Ted Cruz hold a Press Conference about it, and they are now supposedly in discussion about it.
Let’s hope it happens. Who better than Ted Cruz to explain the 1st Amendment aspects of this case to the American people?
Killer graphic... LOL..
Just last week a judge in Detroit declined to jail a man for assault and contempt of court and the assault happened right there in the courtroom.
The judge was sentencing a man who beat a 3 year old little girl to death and the father of the child decided to hammer the perp into the floor. The defense demanded that the father be charged with assault and held in contempt. The judge said the perp had it and more coming, banged her gavel and walked out of the courtroom.
Steve B. needs somebody to pull his head out of that dark smelly place he has got it stuck in. somebody should remind Steve that Kentucky law on Marriage has NOT been vacated—or repealed. That the unjust Judge himself noted that the Kentucky Bill of Rights recognizing the rights of Conscience (Section 5) is in conflict with the new right declared by his queer boss Elena Kagan.- Somebody ought inform Steve That the jail order was apparently illegal and just a power play by a despotic demigod. How can any Court “under” the Constitution make Law contrary to the Constitution and have that be the rule of law?
Ted Cruz is hostile to rule by decree in the overreach by a single unelected activist judge. What Ted Cruz supports is the rule of law, and we haven’t had much of that over the past six terrible years.
Two points: (1) Cruz, a long-time student and exceptional scholar of the U.S. Constitution, believes he's not talking about "nonsense"; (2) Americans should take his arguments seriously. For there is no reasonable doubt that Article III of the U.S. Constitution was intended to prevent a situation wherein a mere five black-robed lawyers could make new "law" — out of thin air (in the process abolishing not only historical experience, but also Supreme Court precedent) — that is binding on some 320 million American citizens.
The SCOTUS majority acted entirely outside the authority of the Constitution; and thus their ruling cannot be held to be valid law. Rather, it should be seen for what it is — as a completely illegitimate, tyrannical infringement on the constitutional liberties of the States and the People thereof.
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.