Cruz: I Call Upon Every Believer...to Stand with Kim Davis

TedCruz.org ^ | 9/3/2015 | Ted Cruz

[DaveyB]

HOUSTON, Texas – U.S. Sen. Cruz, R-Texas, today released the following statement regarding the arrest of Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis:

“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 chose between honoring his or her faith or complying with a lawless court opinion.

“In dissent, Chief Justice Roberts rightly observed that the Court’s marriage opinion has nothing to do with the Constitution. Justice Scalia observed that the Court’s opinion was so contrary to law that state and local officials would choose to defy it.

“For every politician — Democrat and Republican — who is tut-tutting that Davis must resign, they are defending a hypocritical standard. Where is the call for the mayor of San Francisco to resign for creating a sanctuary city — resulting in the murder of American citizens by criminal illegal aliens welcomed by his lawlessness?

“Where is the call for President Obama to resign for ignoring and defying our immigration laws, our welfare reform laws, and even his own Obamacare?

“When the mayor of San Francisco and President Obama resign, then we can talk about Kim Davis.

“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.

“Kim Davis should not be in jail. We are a country founded on Judeo-Christian values, founded by those fleeing religious oppression and seeking a land where we could worship God and live according to our faith, without being imprisoned for doing so.

“I call upon every Believer, every Constitutionalist, every lover of liberty to stand with Kim Davis. Stop the persecution now.”

[DaveyB]

While others bow to Cesar, Ted hold true to the Constitution and God.

[Ray76]

I call for the arrest of the mayor and city council of every “sanctuary city”, and the arrest of Obama for ignoring and defying our immigration laws, our welfare reform laws, and “Obamacare”.

For starters.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Cruz is a good man.

[Jim Robinson]

Go, Cruz, GO!!

[EvilCapitalist]

I knew Ted would be in this ladies corner. God Bless Senator Cruz, and God Bless Kim Davis.

[Yosemitest]

Americans will not stand with SODOMITES !

Radical Islamist" dictates from the Oval Office's ILLEGAL ALIEN IN CHIEF and his IRANIAN SPY ?

Let us remember WHERE we came from.

Footnote: U.S. Constitution
Article I, Section 8: Uniform Immigration
Leviticus 19:34
Article II, Section 1: President Natural-Born
Deuteronomy 17:15
Article III, Section3: Witnesses
Deuteronomy 17:6
Article III, Section 3: Attainer
Ezekiel 18:20
Separation of Powers
Jeremiah 17:9
Three Branches of Government
Isaiah 33:22
Tax-Exemption for Churches
Ezra 7:24
Republicanism
Exodus 18:21

And let us NOT FORGET THESE GREAT MEN and WHAT they SAID !

“For what business, in the name of common sense, has the magistrate with our religion?
The state does not have any concern in the matter.
In what manner does it affect society in what outward form we think it best to pay our adoration to God?
The consciences of men are not the objects of human legislation.
In contrast with this spiritual tyranny, how beautiful appears our constitution in disclaiming all jurisdiction over the souls of men,
securing by a never-to-be- repealed section the voluntary, unchecked moral persuasion of every person by his own self-directed communication with the Father of spirits!”
– William Livingston, Constitution Signer


“Security under our constitution is given to the rights of conscience and private judgment.
They are by nature subject to no control but that of Deity, a
nd in that free situation they are now left.”
– John Jay, first Supreme Court Chief Justice



Original Intent of the First Amendment

Fisher Ames provided the wording for the First Amendment in the House of Representatives.
He did not say anything about “separation of church and state” in his debate, nor may it be inferred as his intent.
In fact, Fisher Ames said something that would be ruled unconstitutional because of the court’s modern application of that very phrase, “separation of church and state.”
He said,
“Not only should the Bible be in our schools, it should be the primary textbook of our schools.” xliv


Earlier, at the time of the Constitutional Convention, the founders discussed the individual rights of American citizens, which would later become the Bill of Rights.
How many times did they mention the phrase “separation of church and state?”
Zero.
They did not talk about it once.

The phrase “separation of church and state” was not even introduced into the American vernacular until a little over a decade after the First Amendment was adopted.
The phrase is exactly that - a phrase.
It is not a statute, it is not a law, and it is not an amendment to the Constitution.
It is simply a phrase lifted from a letter written by one of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson was writing to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802, in response to a letter wherein
they raised their concerns about religious liberty ever being infringed by the American government.
Jefferson responded that this would not occur because the Constitution builds “a wall of separation between Church and State.” xlv
So much has been erroneously inferred from that one statement.
(I encourage you to read David Barton’s article in the November 2003 issue of the Notre Dame Law Review for a more thorough treatment of Jefferson’s intent.)

Simply stated, Jefferson was using the phrase to describe the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, which says, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The protection of our rights to live out our faith without government interference is what was being expressed both in the letter and in the First Amendment.


What About Separation of Church & State

The Supreme Court twisted the meaning of the First Amendment by isolating those eight words from this personal letter from Jefferson. xlvi
They did not even consider the letter in its full context. xlvii
Then, in 1962, the Court used the phrase to completely remove God from all governmental institutions. xlviii
It is amazing how the court can ignore history and rewrite it to fulfill their particular agenda and purpose.

We’ve Got the Wrong Guy

Perhaps even worse than misapplying Jefferson’s words is the fact that Jefferson’s words were used in the first place
as a means for discovering the intent of the First Amendment.
Actually, Thomas Jefferson and his words “separation of church and state” are irrelevant when it comes to interpreting the intended meaning of the First Amendment
because Jefferson did not give us the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.


When a biographer wrote to Thomas Jefferson, to congratulate him for his influence on the Constitution, his response was,
One passage of the paper you enclosed must be corrected.
It is the following.
‘I will say it was yourself more than any other individual that planned and established the Constitution.’
xlix


Jefferson pointed out to the biographer that
he “was in Europe when the Constitution was planned,
and never saw it
until after it had been established.”l


Nor was Thomas Jefferson one of the Congressmen that passed the Bill of Rights, which contains the First Amendment.

So, arguing what the framers’ intent was by using Thomas Jefferson as an expert witness on the First Amendment
is the same as
having a murder trial where the judge allows those who were not at the scene of the murder
to come forth and tell us what happened.
It is intellectually dishonest
and a piece of cleverly crafted creative history at best, to say that Thomas Jefferson’s words provide the intent for the First Amendment.
To understand the original intent of the First Amendment, you must scrutinize the thoughts of those who took part in the debate,
the ones who actually gave us the First Amendment.
That debate emphasized the need to avoid another Church of England being established in America.
In other words, they were trying to prevent a national denomination from being forced upon the citizens.
None of their comments reflected intent to separate religious principles from government or from the public square.
Just the opposite:
they wanted to foster free expression, not political oppression.

For those who still want to rely on Jefferson as their expert regarding the First Amendment, it should not go unnoticed that
exactly two days after writing his letter to the Danbury Baptists, he attended the weekly church service being held AT the U.S. Capitol.
These were religious services that he had helped to start and faithfully attended throughout the remainder of his presidency.li

It appears that Jefferson’s views were far removed from the interpretation of them by our modern courts today.
Would Jefferson,
a man who himself established and attended religious services on federal property while holding the office of the President,
really think that it was against the good of our nation or our citizens
for children to pray for their teachers, parents, and country at the beginning of each school day?
You decide.



Notes:
xliv. Compiled By Friends, Works of Fisher Ames 134 (Boston: T. B. Wait & Co., 1809).

xlv. Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (January 1, 1802), in Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Writings 510 (Merril D. Peterson et al. eds., 1984) (1781).

xlvi. Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).

xlvii. Thomas Jefferson, Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, in Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Writings 510 (Merrill D. Peterson et al. eds., 1984)
(1802): Believing with you
that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God,
that he owes account to none other for faith or his worship,
that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions,
I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared
that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,”
thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.


l. Engle v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962).

lii. Letter to Dr. Joseph Priestly (Washington ed., 441). < http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/foley-page?id=JCE1686>.

l. Id.

li. William Parker Cutler and Julia Perkins Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence of Rev. Manasseh Cutler (Cincinnati: Colin Robert Clarke & Co., 1888), Vol. II, p. 66, 119,
letter to Joseph Torrey, January 4, 1802.
Cutler meant that Jefferson attended church on January 3, 1802, for the first time as President.
Bishop Claggett’s letter of February 18, 1801, already revealed that as Vice-President, Jefferson went to church services in the House.

[Hetty_Fauxvert]

I love Ted, have contributed $ to his PAC, and will vote for him. Etc. BUT this is ridiculous. She’s only been in office since January. She should have been able to look down the road and see this was going to happen, and make her plans accordingly.

Alternatively, she should point out that Kentucky really doesn’t have law on the books right now regarding gay marriage (or at least a “valid” law, following the SCOTUS decision), and they need to actually write that law so she can follow it (or not).

But this is not the same as a baker who’s been in business for many years, etc. She’s in a public office, and has NOT been there for decades. She knew pretty much which way the wind was blowing and what the job would entail.

Ted Cruz: This is not the hill to make your stand on. Pick a different one.

[CA Conservative]

So, where does Trump stand on this issue? As serious as the immigration issue is, it pales compared to the fight for religious liberty we are facing.

[Nea Wood]

Well said, Senator Cruz.

[AppyPappy]

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
(Rom 13:1-3)

[Charles Henrickson]

Cruz is leading the way on the religious liberty issue! Good for him!

[Charles Henrickson]

And Cruz understands and upholds the Constitution more ably than anyone else.

[Lopeover]

There is no difference between this woman & the Muslim airline Stewardess that wouldn’t serve booze on the flight to customers.

Cruz voted for the Corker bill and TPA. This gave Obama power to get the Iran deal. He and the other Republucans (with exception of Cotton, who voted no on Corker) did more damage with that vote, than the supremes did on the gay marriage vote.

The Iran deal compromised the Constitution & will cost lives.

[CA Conservative]

She’s in a public office, and has NOT been there for decades.

You should do more research. She has been a deputy clerk in this office for more than 25 years before being elected as clerk.

If religious liberty is not a hill to die on, then this country is truly on its way to the dustbin of history. If we fail to defend this hill, then no other hill is worth defending. We might as well let it burn down and start from scratch.

[mad puppy]

Obviously she should not be in jail. This is silly.

However, if she unwilling do her job, for what ever reason, she should be re-assigned.

Being right in a wrong environment sometimes means you’re going to take a beating. I just hope Cruz doesn’t get crushed by this relatively small issue now, and lose his chance to fight the bigger fight down the road.

[CA Conservative]

There is no difference between this woman & the Muslim airline Stewardess that wouldn’t serve booze on the flight to customers.

Actually, there is a great deal of difference between the two. The stewardess works for the airline, and she is refusing to follow the policies and procedures of her employer, which existed and were clear to her before taking the job. Her employer has the right to fire her if no reasonable accommodation can be made.

The clerk works for the people of her county. She was elected to office by them, which is why she cannot be fired. The people of Kentucky voted overwhelmingly to keep marriage between a man and a woman only. So in her actions, she is fulfilling the policies and procedures approved by her "employers" at the time she was "hired". Those policies and procedures have not been changed by her employers (the voters); instead, the changes have been imposed by federal courts.

So you may disagree with the clerk's decision, but to compare her to the Muslim stewardess is an example of very faulty reasoning.

[Ancesthntr]

“When the mayor of San Francisco and President Obama resign, then we can talk about Kim Davis.

You know, before I read that I thought that Davis needed to resign - and then go write a book and give speeches and make 10 or 50 times what she makes as a clerk.

But now I agree with Cruz - let others, who have far more responsibility, resign when THEY violate the law. Those who did it first should resign first.

Arresting her for contempt is way too harsh, and she has a legitimate 1st Amendment case here. Those saying, "But she has to do her job," etc., etc. have not considered that when she took the job, there was no requirement to marry same-sex individuals. IOW, the nuisance came to her, she didn't sign on for it from Day 1.

[CA Conservative]

However, if she unwilling do her job, for what ever reason, she should be re-assigned.

She cannot be removed, reassigned, replaced, fired, etc. This is an elected position, and the only way to remove her from office is by impeachment by the state legislature.

[Lera]

Dan 3:17 If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king.

Dan 3:18 But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.

Kennedy , Kagan , Sotomyour , Ginsberg are unjust judges who knowing this would happen soon or later decided they new better than God and would continue to push their atheism on America .

This is a lawless nation that God can not continue to bless .

[caww]

ONCE AGAIN CRUZ LEADS THE WAY!!

U.S. Sen. Cruz, R-Texas, today released the following statement regarding the arrest of Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis:

“Today, JUDICIAL LAWLEESSNESS 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 chose between honoring his or her faith or complying with a lawless court opinion.

“In dissent, Chief Justice Roberts rightly observed that the Court’s marriage opinion has nothing to do with the Constitution. Justice Scalia observed that the Court’s opinion was so contrary to law that state and local officials would choose to defy it.

“For every politician — Democrat and Republican — who is tut-tutting that Davis must resign, they are defending a hypocritical standard..... Where is the call for the mayor of San Francisco to resign for creating a sanctuary city — resulting in the murder of American citizens by criminal illegal aliens welcomed by his lawlessness?

... “Where is the call for President Obama to resign for ignoring and defying our immigration laws, our welfare reform laws, and even his own Obamacare? ......“When the mayor of San Francisco and President Obama resign, then we can talk about Kim Davis......

“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. “Kim Davis should not be in jail.

We are a country founded on Judeo-Christian values, founded by those fleeing religious oppression and seeking a land where we could worship God and live according to our faith, without being imprisoned for doing so.

“I call upon every Believer, every Constitutionalist, every lover of liberty to stand with Kim Davis. Stop the persecution now.”