To: EternalVigilance
Ted Cruz is pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun, pro-drilling, pro-borders, pro-America, pro-freedom. He’s against abortion, against partial birth abortion, against federal funding for abortion, against forcing insurance companies or religious institutions to cover abortion, etc. against their will. Is against gay marriage, against ObamaCare, against amnesty, against “immigration reform.” He champions individual rights, religious freedom and states rights (federalism). He’s an experienced state attorney general who has argued and won many key battles in the Supreme Court.
I like him a lot. And if he runs I believe he will be one of our strongest, if not the best conservative running.
From the Federalist Society:
http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/id.475/author.asp
Hon. R. Ted Cruz
United States Senator, Texas
In 2012, Ted Cruz was elected as the 34th U.S. Senator from Texas. A passionate fighter for limited government, economic growth, and the Constitution, Ted won a decisive victory in both the Republican primary and the general election, despite having never before been elected to office.
Propelled by tens of thousands of grassroots activists across Texas, Ted’s election has been described by the Washington Post as “the biggest upset of 2012 . . . a true grassroots victory against very long odds.”
National Review has described Ted as “a great Reaganite hope,” columnist George Will has described him as “as good as it gets,” and the National Federation of Independent Business characterized his election as “critical to the small-business owners in [Texas, and], also to protecting free enterprise across America,”
Ted’s calling to public service is inspired largely by his first-hand observation of the pursuit of freedom and opportunity in America. Ted’s mother was born in Delaware to an Irish and Italian working-class family; she became the first in her family to go to college, graduated from Rice University with a degree in mathematics, and became a pioneering computer programmer in the 1950s.
Ted’s father was born in Cuba, fought in the revolution, and was imprisoned and tortured. He fled to Texas in 1957, penniless and not speaking a word of English. He washed dishes for 50 cents an hour, paid his way through the University of Texas, and started a small business in the oil and gas industry. Today, Ted’s father is a pastor in Dallas.
In the Senate, Ted serves on the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation; the Committee on Armed Services; the Committee on the Judiciary; the Special Committee on Aging; and the Committee on Rules and Administration.
Before being elected, Ted received national acclaim as the Solicitor General of Texas, the State’s chief lawyer before the U.S. Supreme Court. Serving under Attorney General Greg Abbott, Ted was the nation’s youngest Solicitor General, the longest serving Solicitor General in Texas, and the first Hispanic Solicitor General of Texas.
In private practice in Houston, Ted spent five years as a partner at one of the nation’s largest law firms, where he led the firm’s U.S. Supreme Court and national Appellate Litigation practice.
Ted has authored more than 80 U.S. Supreme Court briefs and argued 43 oral arguments, including nine before the U.S. Supreme Court. During Ted’s service as Solicitor General, Texas achieved an unprecedented series of landmark national victories, including successfully defending:
U.S. sovereignty against the UN and the World Court in Medellin v. Texas;
The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms;
The constitutionality of the Texas Ten Commandments monument;
The constitutionality of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance;
The constitutionality of the Texas Sexually Violent Predator Civil Commitment law; and
The Texas congressional redistricting plan.
The National Law Journal has called Ted “a key voice” to whom “the [U.S. Supreme Court] Justices listen.” Ted has been named by American Lawyer magazine as one of the 50 Best Litigators under 45 in America, by the National Law Journal as one of the 50 Most Influential Minority Lawyers in America, and by Texas Lawyer as one of the 25 Greatest Texas Lawyers of the Past Quarter Century.
From 2004-09, he taught U.S. Supreme Court Litigation as an Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of Texas School of Law.
Prior to becoming Solicitor General, he served as the Director of the Office of Policy Planning at the Federal Trade Commission, as Associate Deputy Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice, and as Domestic Policy Advisor on the 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign.
Ted graduated with honors from Princeton University and with high honors from Harvard Law School. He served as a law clerk to Chief Justice William Rehnquist on the U.S. Supreme Court. He was the first Hispanic ever to clerk for the Chief Justice of the United States.
Ted and his wife Heidi live in his hometown of Houston, Texas, with their two young daughters Caroline and Catherine.
Education
Harvard Law School, 1995, J.D., Magna Cum Laude
Princeton University, 1992, A.B., Cum Laude
Publications
Is the Administrative State on the Rise? - Event Audio/Video
First Annual Executive Branch Review Conference
June 13, 2013
Address by Senator-Elect Ted Cruz - Event Audio/Video
2012 National Lawyers Convention
November 20, 2012
Enumerated Powers, the Tenth Amendment, and Limited Government - Event Audio/Video
2010 National Lawyers Convention
November 18, 2010
The Role of the State Attorney General - Podcast
Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group
May 20, 2010
Salazar v. Buono and the Establishment Clause - Podcast
Religious Liberties Practice Group
April 6, 2010
A Look Back at the October Supreme Court 2007 Term - Event Audio/Video
July 1, 2008
SCOTUScast 10-11-07 featuring Ted Cruz
Medellin v. Texas
October 11, 2007
Medellin v. Texas: Presidential Power and International Tribunals - Event Audio/Video
September 27, 2007
A Preview of the Supreme Court October 2007 Term, With a Look Back at the October 2006 Term - Event Audio/Video
September 26, 2007
Government—Friend or Foe of E-Commerce? - Transcript
Fight The Future? Government Regulation and Technological Progress
October 18, 2001
Debates
District of Columbia v. Heller
June 26, 2008
Medellin v. Texas
Part I: Self-Execution
March 28, 2008
116 posted on
08/30/2013 3:52:22 PM PDT by
Jim Robinson
(Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
To: All
Oops. I misspoke. Cruz was not the state Attorney General, he was Solicitor General.
From the Federalist Society:
http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/id.475/author.asp
Hon. R. Ted Cruz
United States Senator, Texas
In 2012, Ted Cruz was elected as the 34th U.S. Senator from Texas. A passionate fighter for limited government, economic growth, and the Constitution, Ted won a decisive victory in both the Republican primary and the general election, despite having never before been elected to office.
Propelled by tens of thousands of grassroots activists across Texas, Ted’s election has been described by the Washington Post as “the biggest upset of 2012 . . . a true grassroots victory against very long odds.”
National Review has described Ted as “a great Reaganite hope,” columnist George Will has described him as “as good as it gets,” and the National Federation of Independent Business characterized his election as “critical to the small-business owners in [Texas, and], also to protecting free enterprise across America,”
Ted’s calling to public service is inspired largely by his first-hand observation of the pursuit of freedom and opportunity in America. Ted’s mother was born in Delaware to an Irish and Italian working-class family; she became the first in her family to go to college, graduated from Rice University with a degree in mathematics, and became a pioneering computer programmer in the 1950s.
Ted’s father was born in Cuba, fought in the revolution, and was imprisoned and tortured. He fled to Texas in 1957, penniless and not speaking a word of English. He washed dishes for 50 cents an hour, paid his way through the University of Texas, and started a small business in the oil and gas industry. Today, Ted’s father is a pastor in Dallas.
In the Senate, Ted serves on the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation; the Committee on Armed Services; the Committee on the Judiciary; the Special Committee on Aging; and the Committee on Rules and Administration.
Before being elected, Ted received national acclaim as the Solicitor General of Texas, the State's chief lawyer before the U.S. Supreme Court. Serving under Attorney General Greg Abbott, Ted was the nation’s youngest Solicitor General, the longest serving Solicitor General in Texas, and the first Hispanic Solicitor General of Texas.
In private practice in Houston, Ted spent five years as a partner at one of the nation’s largest law firms, where he led the firm’s U.S. Supreme Court and national Appellate Litigation practice.
Ted has authored more than 80 U.S. Supreme Court briefs and argued 43 oral arguments, including nine before the U.S. Supreme Court. During Ted’s service as Solicitor General, Texas achieved an unprecedented series of landmark national victories, including successfully defending:
- U.S. sovereignty against the UN and the World Court in Medellin v. Texas;
- The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms;
- The constitutionality of the Texas Ten Commandments monument;
- The constitutionality of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance;
- The constitutionality of the Texas Sexually Violent Predator Civil Commitment law; and
- The Texas congressional redistricting plan.
The National Law Journal has called Ted “a key voice” to whom “the [U.S. Supreme Court] Justices listen.” Ted has been named by American Lawyer magazine as one of the 50 Best Litigators under 45 in America, by the National Law Journal as one of the 50 Most Influential Minority Lawyers in America, and by Texas Lawyer as one of the 25 Greatest Texas Lawyers of the Past Quarter Century.
From 2004-09, he taught U.S. Supreme Court Litigation as an Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of Texas School of Law.
Prior to becoming Solicitor General, he served as the Director of the Office of Policy Planning at the Federal Trade Commission, as Associate Deputy Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice, and as Domestic Policy Advisor on the 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign.
Ted graduated with honors from Princeton University and with high honors from Harvard Law School. He served as a law clerk to Chief Justice William Rehnquist on the U.S. Supreme Court. He was the first Hispanic ever to clerk for the Chief Justice of the United States.
Ted and his wife Heidi live in his hometown of Houston, Texas, with their two young daughters Caroline and Catherine.
Education
- Harvard Law School, 1995, J.D., Magna Cum Laude
- Princeton University, 1992, A.B., Cum Laude
Publications
Debates
129 posted on
08/30/2013 4:11:42 PM PDT by
Jim Robinson
(Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
To: Jim Robinson
Nice resume. And, like I said, I’m sure he’s a decent, sincere guy.
Which doesn’t change the fact that he supports the same immoral, unconstitutional, utilitarian, incrementalist strategy which has failed posterity for forty years now, because it is contrary to the most important foundational principles of this free republic, ie the laws of nature and nature’s God.
The unalienable nature of the individual right to life, and the necessary requirement that equal protection under the law be accorded every person, in every jurisdiction, is not negotiable.
If he would sincerely abandon this position, and prove it by his actions, I’d be pleased to consider him.
163 posted on
08/30/2013 5:06:14 PM PDT by
EternalVigilance
(Trust but verify. If there are none trustworthy, and no means to verify, trust no one.)
To: Jim Robinson
The letter I addressed to him last month on this subject:
United States Senator Ted Cruz of Texas,
Your demeanor and plain words on many subjects have been refreshing, Senator, since your election. But your support for the so-called ‘twenty week’ or “fetal pain” abortion legislation that was just passed in your home state, and which is similarly being proposed in the great national legislative body in which you now serve, is a huge disappointment. Such support destroys your credibility and disqualifies you.
Do you think it would be right, or just, or moral, or constitutional, if a “law” were passed that explicitly allowed all paraplegics to be shot to death, since they cannot “feel pain”?
Would a “law” that gave “legal” permission to kill elderly family members, as long as they were given enough morphine, be acceptable to you?
Because that is exactly what these sorts of bills are predicated upon. An arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, irrational, baseless, immoral claim concerning whether or not the victim can feel anything when they are destroyed at the vicious, bloody hands of the abortionists.
The Fifth Amendment:
“No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.”
The Fourteenth Amendment:
“No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Personhood - what you intrinsically are, a unique person, made in God’s image and likeness - is the constitutional criteria, not “pain,” not calendar age, not stage of maturity or human development, not location, nor anything else.
America’s founders clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence, our nation’s charter, that the equal protection of the God-given, unalienable right to life of EVERY PERSON, FROM THEIR CREATION, is the raison d’etre, the primary reason, for the existence of government.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...”
And, the ultimate stated purpose of our Constitution is to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to Posterity.”
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Any bill that grants express permission, as this legislation does, to kill certain disfavored classes of innocent persons, violates EVERY SINGLE CLAUSE of that statement of purpose, in fact.
The equal protection of every innocent person within the United States, from the first moment of their physical creation, is NOT optional. IT IS IMPERATIVE, if you are to fulfill the obligations of the sacred oath that you swore to God Himself.
If you will not act according to that supremely important imperative, frankly, you’re not fit for any office of public trust. I must say, without any reservation, that you, and every one of your colleagues who agrees with you, should, if you will not immediately change your thinking, resign in shame and disgrace and go home. Let someone who understands the basics of the obligations of the oath serve in your stead.
If you, and ALL officers of government, in EVERY branch, at EVERY level, , as per the absolute requirement of Article Six of our Constitution, will not keep your oath to defend the unalienable, God-given right to life of EVERY innocent person, FROM CREATION UNTIL NATURAL DEATH, there will soon be no America. You will have destroyed it, because a building cannot long stand without its foundations. And make no mistake, respect for the individual EQUAL right to live is that foundation.
The practices of abortion and euthanasia should not exist in a republic whose form of government, and law, and claim to liberty, is predicated on the foundation of the equal protection of unalienable, God-given natural individual rights, starting with the right to live.
“Don’t worrry they won’t feel a thing” is an immoral thing to say, Senator. It’s wrong.
Your position is actually a giant evil step beyond Roe vs. Wade, which was a mere court opinion. After all, even Blackmun admitted in that infamous majority opinion that if the “fetus,” or child, is a person, “of course” they are protected by our Constitution’s explicit equal protection requirement. You, on the other hand, admit to their personhood, and, contrary to the Constitution, grant express permission for certain disfavored classes of those persons to be murdered. You are embedding, codifying, “legal” permission to kill innocent people in our laws. This is, sir, a lawless, senseless, thing to do.
One last thing:
Since “laws” such as this are not according to right reason, being clearly immoral and a gross violation of the first and most important aspect of the natural law, they are null and void in any case. The wisest men throughout the history of western civilization, right up through the generation of the founders of this great republic we call America, rightly said so.
“True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrong-doing by its prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or prohibitions upon good men in vain, although neither have any effect on the wicked. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to attempt to repeal a part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by Senate or People, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is, God, over us all, for He is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst penalties, even if he escapes what is commonly called punishment ...”
— Marcus Tullius Cicero, 59 - 47 B.C.
“Human law is law only by virtue of its accordance with right reason; and thus it is manifest that it flows from the eternal law. And in so far as it deviates from right reason it is called an unjust law; in such case it is no law at all, but rather a species of violence.”
— Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Ia-Ilae, q. xciii, art. 3, ad 2m.
“Good and wise men, in all ages...have supposed, that the deity, from the relations, we stand in, to himself and to each other, has constituted an eternal and immutable law, which is, indispensably, obligatory upon all mankind, prior to any human institution whatever.”
“This is what is called the law of nature, which, being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is, of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries at all times. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid, derive all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.”
— William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law of England (1765)
“[A]ll men are equally bound by the laws of nature, or to speak more properly, the laws of the Creator.”
— Samuel Adams
“When human laws contradict or discountenance the means, which are necessary to preserve the essential rights of any society, they defeat the proper end of all laws, and so become null and void.”
— Alexander Hamilton
Please reconsider your immoral, unconstitutional position forthwith, Senator.
Very sincerely,
Tom Hoefling
Chairman, America’s Party
www.equalprotectionforposterity.com
tomhoefling@gmail.com
http://www.equalprotectionforposterity.com/7/post/2013/07/an-open-letter-to-sen-ted-cruz-twenty-week-abortion-bill-is-immoral-and-unconstitutional.html
168 posted on
08/30/2013 5:16:23 PM PDT by
EternalVigilance
(Trust but verify. If there are none trustworthy, and no means to verify, trust no one.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
