THE BLOG
02/05/2016 01:53 pm ET Updated Feb 05, 2017

Unlike Washington, Ted Cruz Hates The Constitution

Forget Canada. Ted Cruz isn't qualified to be president even if he was born on Plymouth Rock.

My proposition is a simple one: Any person who disdains all three branches of a federal government is completely disqualified from being the person responsible to lead and run that government.

Let me put my proposition another way: No matter what people today say about the founding fathers and the Constitution, the framers of that document would roll over in their graves if they were aware that we might elect a president who hates all three branches of the very government established by that constitution.

After all, the Constitution is the place where wise statesmen like Washington established a federal judiciary, for example, and a legislative body with a nationwide domain of authority. The founders established the authority of the Chief Executive, even if his name would one day be Obama.

Who would we be to openly oppose these institutions? Wouldn't that be in the neighborhood of treasonous? Shouldn't we love these branches of government, just in order to be worthy and competent citizens, let alone presidents? Shouldn't we support the authority of the holders of these vital offices, at a minimum, to qualify to be ourselves a holder of one of them? Is it possible to govern ourselves by this constitution without believing so?

I didn't establish these institutions in order to found and sustain a nation, nor did the liberal media, it is the Constitution establishing these institutions. Now. Today. As far as I can tell, it is impossible to love and believe in the Constitution while at the same time publicly and venomously repudiating the sitting administrative embodiment of nearly all of the document.

If we hate and oppose - publicly, openly - the Executive, the Judicial, and the Legislative branches of the sitting federal government, do we not effectively eviscerated the Constitution? In terms of the very frame and structure of that document, would it not be tantamount to intellectually and historically raping the founding fathers to undermine the authority of each and every branch of the government they established in good faith?

George Washington, Unlike Ted Cruz, Was Not Hated By Everybody

We have recently heard Ted Cruz compared favorably with the father of our country, George Washington. They may have even mentioned a horse. Now, history records that George Washington was a true statesman. He was not, for example, despised by almost every other representative of both parties, including his own. That's quite a discrepancy: One was personally loved by almost everybody, the other is personally loathed by almost everybody.

It is also true that George Washington loved the Constitution, or at least I would expect that from the team leader for the group that wrote it. So, no matter how hard you search, you will find no quote from George Washington stating, for example, that he does not support the United States Supreme Court, whereas it is simple to produce such an example from Cruz.

When Cruz says that he is not a 'Washington insider', he is making an accurate self-assessment. It is up to us to recognize that, deep down where he breathes and believes, he is also an outsider in the George sense of the word Washington. When Ted Cruz says he is fighting the 'Washington establishment', it is up to us to recognize that what he means is that he is fighting the government Washington established.

Ted Cruz openly disdains all three branches of the government established by Washington and his compatriots. Cruz is no General Washington; he isn't even a good lieutenant. The truth is, Cruz is a Benedict Arnold-sized traitor, a bash-the-Constitution wolf in reverent-sheep, fife-and-drums clothing.

Ted Cruz Hates the Judicial Branch of Our Government

In the context of his overall sales pitch, Cruz will talk about the Supreme Court. This past September, on Stephen Colbert's program, Cruz said,

"I don't think we should entrust governing our society to 5 unelected lawyers in Washington. Why would ya possibly hand over the rights of 320 million Americans to 5 lawyers in Washington to say, 'We're gonna decide the rules that govern ya.'? If ya wanna win an issue, go to the ballot box and win at the ballot box. That's the way the Constitution was designed."

Colbert's non-conservative audience applauded that statement, which is interesting. Colbert's is presumably an adversarial crowd towards Tea Party conservatives, and Cruz had just told them that he has no intention whatsoever of following the way the Constitution was designed, an assertion which becomes obvious as we dissect his statement. No matter if there is applause, it is important to determine if Ted Cruz means it when he says he intends to follow the Constitution, or if he is just saying that to sound all apple pie and founding-fatherish.

I can answer his question about why I would hand over the rights of governance of 320 million Americans to 5 lawyers in Washington: Once judicial due process has worked its way up through the federal courts, finally settling important cases before the Supreme Court is exactly what the Constitution prescribes. That is what Jefferson and Washington and company expressly stated in the founding document.

When Cruz speaks this way about the Supreme Court, make no mistake, he is undermining the authority of the Constitution itself. His fallacy is right there in the first sentence:

"I don't think we should entrust governing our society to 5 un-elected lawyers in Washington."

That sentence literally means, "I don't think we should follow the Constitution."

Does Cruz think the Supreme Court started with the New Deal or something? Was SCOTUS secretly established by the liberal media? Or, even more sinister and sobering, by Obama himself?

I'm sure I read someplace, I believe it was in the 5th grade, that it is the Constitution that says the judiciary will be one of the three branches of government, and it is the Constitution granting that authority to the Supreme Court.

Also, we should get something straight about the 'ballot box'. It is true that the members of the Supreme Court are not elected by us in a direct sense; but, clearly, the presidents who appoint those justices have been elected by us, as were all of the senators involved in the vetting and confirmation process. Membership on the Supreme Court is a direct result of what happens at the ballot box, and to imply otherwise is a blatant attempt to obscure the truth, even to deceive.

Let's be very clear: Cruz is saying that the Constitution works a certain way - by the ballot box. During the very same breath he also implies that the authority of the Supreme Court is suspect and questionable, which completely ignores, as far as I can tell, that it is the Constitution itself that is granting authority to the Supreme Court.

Why would I grant those 5 people authority? The Constitution grants those 5 people authority. That is the way the Constitution was designed. Does Cruz not understand this? Did he miss the 5th grade? Were the founders wrong about this? Did Jefferson state it poorly, so that it is confusing Cruz?

Ted Cruz Hates the Executive Branch of Our Government

What about the Executive Branch? Does Cruz have any regard for the authority of the presidency? I challenge anybody to present even one statement from Ted Cruz in support of our country's sitting president, a man there by virtue of the very ballot box Cruz claims to so revere. (Note: Cruz is probably also not Revere.) I understand you can find support from Cruz for dead presidents possessing no authority save over the dandelions they are pushing up, but please find me one shred of evidence that he has anything other than total disdain for the Executive Branch of our government as it now stands by due process.

There are no statements of support from Cruz for his country's president - there is no evidence that he believes in the authority of that office whatsoever. Cruz loathes the Executive Branch of our government right now, this very moment, by his own record and testimony. Isn't this moment the only one that matters? The Bushes hold no power, and Reagan is dead; loyalty to them should not be the basis for whether or not we will regard the authority of the institutions established by the Constitution.

I have no doubt Cruz and his supporters will blame Obama! They will say that Obama abuses executive orders, for example, and lawlessly oversteps his authority. How interesting that they use the word 'lawless' a lot when they talk about Obama. We may also hear them use the word 'tyranny'.

In an irony of fantastic proportions, the best example of Cruz' lawlessness comes via former Republican president Richard Nixon, the man whom Cruz most resembles from among our pantheon of past presidents. It was Nixon who instituted the Environmental Protection Agency by executive order in 1970. It was also Nixon who famously told David Frost and the world that illegal behavior was not illegal as long as it was him doing it.

First of all, if Barack Obama used his executive pen to establish the EPA, Ted Cruz and about one third of the country would completely melt down, like that guy on Indian Jones who chose poorly. Can you imagine what would happen if Obama did what Nixon did? From that day forward, to the artists at Fox News it would be strictly mandated that under no circumstances should any graphic lack imagery connecting Obama to the great Satan himself.

So, how does Cruz feel about the EPA? He urges states to push back against them. Cruz is on record that he does not believe the EPA has jurisdiction over the environmental resources of the country and how they are impacted by the actions of business. For example, in the case of regulating carbon emissions, Cruz says that congressional authority must be granted to regulate those emissions.

Here's the problem with that: The EPA is an agency legitimately established by the Executive Branch of our government, even by a member of Cruz' own party. I understand that Cruz does not like everything about the EPA, and Texas doesn't like everything about the EPA, but that is entirely different from telling states to "push back" against them, which directly undermines their authority.

If Cruz actively undermines the authority of a legitimate arm of the Executive Branch of the government, and I remind everybody that it is the Constitution granting authority to that branch, is that not him thumbing his nose at the authority of the federal government itself? I find no essential difference between what Cruz does as he disregards Obama and the EPA and what the ranchers in Oregon do when they illegally override federal property. In both cases, in no uncertain terms, we are witnessing lawlessness.

Ted Cruz Hates the Legislative Branch of Our Government

That one quote of his with Colbert is quite a gold mine of misdirection. When Cruz talks about the fate of the country being in the hands of 5 lawyers in Washington, isn't it massively ironic that sometimes, when it suits Cruz, the fate of the country is in the hands of 1 lawyer in Washington? The name of that lawyer, of course, is Ted Cruz.

When it suits him, when there is a law that he does not like, lawyer Ted Cruz shuts down the government. If the government insists upon implementing one law that he doesn't like, he will make certain that none of the laws are implemented.

In playground vernacular, which is an appropriate metaphor, Cruz says, "If you guys don't do what I want, I'm taking my football and I'm going home!" And then the whole damn game stops for one narcissist who thinks he is justified in disregarding certain laws.

Is Ted Cruz even remotely justified, constitutionally, in shutting down the government because it dares to implement a law - one put on the books by due process, mind you - about which he disagrees?

Even if all of the voters in Texas hate a federal law, if elected representatives have voted and that law was put on the books by due process, isn't that the government the Constitution has prescribed? There is nothing nefarious about it: Federal representatives were voted into place by citizens at the ballot box, and then the representatives voted. That is how we got the federal laws. If free individuals in each state decide to do what they want because they are angry, disregarding federal authority and laws whenever they see fit, wouldn't that just be straight-up lawlessness? Isn't that the definition of being criminal?

Why is it any less criminal if individual states behave that way? Didn't we fight a civil war over this question? Lincoln proposed that the federal government has the right to enforce federal authority over the states, and he fought a terrible war to make his point. Not only is it a fact that Lincoln insisted upon America being a centrally governed union of states (he didn't, for example, just allow the south to disregard federal law or to secede), but also, now it is a lot easier to understand why Lincoln is never the president used in Cruz comparisons.

Listen again to what huckster Cruz says in that lofty, sing-song, yea-and-amen voice of his:

"If ya wanna win an issue, go to the ballot box and win at the ballot box. That's the way the Constitution was designed."

Indeed. But is that what Cruz has done during his stewardship of the Legislative Branch of our government? Absolutely not. He has thwarted progress of any kind in the Legislative Branch, even though that branch is comprised of duly elected representatives.

For example, did Ted Cruz seek to implement the Affordable Care Act, which is his duty because that is the law? He certainly did not. Did he gather enough votes and signatures - using due process, by the Constitution - to repeal that law? Apparently not, because it is still the law. What does Cruz do instead? He shuts down the whole government; he refuses to pay to uphold the law.

Is that what the Constitution prescribes? Precisely where is that prescribed in the Constitution?

Texas doesn't own the congressional chamber. Vermont is there too. People in Vermont voted representatives in - I'm sure I read that in 5th grade also. Connecticut too, and Colorado. You see my point: When Ted Cruz obstructs the implementation of federal laws as a sitting member of Congress, he is thwarting - in no uncertain terms - the will of most of the American electorate. Those members of Congress are not there as the result of any conspiracy or power grab by the liberal media, they are there because people voted. And then, as Cruz correctly says, those representatives vote and issues are resolved. Cruz is good at the 'saying' part, but when it comes to the 'doing' part of the law, he falls off track.

The federal laws that are on the books today got there by way of the ballot box and congressional voting, just the way Cruz says he wants it. Then - and isn't this obvious? - everybody has to agree to obey all of the laws which the elected representatives voted on and passed. That is how a civilized, democratic nation of laws works. But Cruz, as far as I can tell, thrives in a fairy tale world where he firmly believes everything about our representative government until he is forced to confront its duties in the real world, the actual one where things like 'society' and 'civilization' exist, the world where we move forward and obey the laws.

Cruz hates that world. He is so committed to not obeying and implementing some of the laws on the books that he is willing to shut down the whole nation of laws, so that none of them are obeyed and implemented, until he gets his anarchist way.

So, it turns out, Ted Cruz doesn't even believe in the authority of the Legislative Branch of our federal government, the one he is directly responsible to believe in. He's 3-for-3. Members of Congress swear to uphold the law and run the government. Cruz took the oath, but then he didn't fulfill it.

How can Cruz keep his oath to uphold his government, then go on to financially cripple it, so that it cannot function? Are not 'crippling' and 'upholding' necessarily contradictory activities? He disregards the authority even of his own congressional body. He causes to cease that which he swore to sustain as a sign that he is a true conservative; but, as a matter of practical fact, it is a sign he has no intention of upholding the law and running the government.

And here I thought true conservatives believe in upholding laws and even paying for them.

This is true, deeply profound lawlessness Cruz is exhibiting. He isn't only undermining the jurisdiction and authority of certain laws he doesn't like, he is undermining the jurisdiction and authority of entire branches of the federal government established by the Constitution when they do things he doesn't like. Indeed, he is doing that to every single branch of government the Constitution prescribes we have.

I tell you, if they are aware, not only are the founding fathers rolling over in their graves, Jefferson is now actively tunneling over to Franklin and Adams to discuss putting a stop to it.

Beware False Prophets

Cruz has a simple, fundamental message: The federal government should not have authority over us. Here's the problem with that: The Constitution says the federal government should have authority over us. His lawlessness is basic - it seeks to undermine the institutions themselves, and with them the document establishing them, and with it the founders who forged that great rock of balance and compromise.

Cruz probably did well in Iowa because the conservative Evangelicals love him - Cruz is fond of quoting scripture, and they seem to like that. Here is one they all need to take to heart:

"The sin of rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft." 1st Samuel 15:23

If Lord of Darkness Lucifer ran for president on the Republican ticket, promising to cut taxes on the very wealthy, snatch welfare away from the poor, build our military, protect our guns, ban the refugees, and above all, forever end abortion in America, I believe that over 90% of conservative Evangelicals would vote for him. Many would wake early and pray for him, tirelessly go and canvas neighborhoods in support of him.

Cruz is very smart to quote scripture. He might even believe some of it. But from a constitutional perspective, as far as I can tell, he is essentially an anarchist - he doesn't really want to follow any of it very closely. Rebellion isn't known to be a virtuous, desirable spiritual quality, as Samuel clearly understood, and I submit it is not very presidential either unless you are seeking to run a coven. No matter how much he prays, God help us all if Cruz is ever the leader of the free world.

Ted Cruz, by his own record and testimony, hates the very government established by the Constitution. Anarchists against the government established by the Constitution make bad presidents. In no way is Ted Cruz qualified to hold that high office.