Arizona Citizens Supporting Honest Representative Government At All Levels
Originally published in MCRC Briefs:
LD13 PC Scott Powelson: “I now believe Ted Cruz to be a stealth Establishment Candidate. How can Cruz - a first term senator from Texas - have the infrastructure in place to ‘steal delegates’ before and after the local elections? How is it that in Texas - where Republican Politicians have been run by the Establishment - a guy like Cruz is an outsider? The Establishment has pivoted to actively supporting Cruz to try to keep the Tea Party people from abandoning him. There is no way Cruz could afford the infrastructure the Establishment is providing to Cruz and Kasich to defeat Trump. The Establishment owned media has backed off most opposition to Cruz. The Bush ties Cruz had in the past and that his wife has to this day are mostly overlooked by voters who have been convinced that Cruz is an outsider. He would never have been a senator from Texas without ties to the Establishment. Texas has been ground zero for the new Establishment schemes to join Mexico, Canada and the USA in the SPP which is currently dormant thanks to the outcry of the people over the NAFTA highways being put through Texas. I started out supporting Cruz and Trump but now believe we have ‘been had by the Establishment’ when it comes to Cruz, especially when he says we can't deport 12 million illegal aliens. It is time for the USA to think about our own citizens first - before weaken ourselves to the point we can't recover. What the Cruz team is doing is only possible with the help of the old guard Establishment insiders help. The same operatives who locked out Ron Paul's delegates and ushered in McCain and Romney against Obama are apparently behind Cruz.”
[Editor: The people are much more upset by the way things are going in both parties than the party leadership wants to admit or even see. In both the Republican and Democrat parties, the controlling leadership is turning deaf ears to we the people. Democrat voters are just as upset as Republican voters at how the strings are being pulled by a precious few to meet their private agendas. The people understand that our government is supposed to be run by the governed, not by the establishment party hierarchy. Just watch this video to see who is actually running things: https://youtu.be/bKwO1onXAaI It is world wide and long in place.
The governed have hit the wall on being enslaved by big money special interests that have skimmed taxpayer dollars for their own benefit, pushed one world order, double-crossed citizens, pushed amnesty to make the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and big business happy with cheap labor at the expense of American citizens. Our banks are in terrible shape as a result of the maneuvering of what passes as leadership in both parties and Dodd-Frank. As a result, our economy, indeed the world economy, is on the brink of disaster. Those who are pulling these strings have set up the Federal Reserve, Wall Street and economies around the world to protect themselves for the day that the overwhelming debt worldwide finally takes its toll.
It was recently said, "Trump is connected to Wall Street. Cruz IS Wall Street! Correct! Currently, there is more debt in the world than there is currency circulating. Much of the wealth is stashed in cash and not circulating. It's time for both parties to undergo a metamorphosis! We delude ourselves if we think Cruz is not a part of that. It's time for we the people to actually select the Republican nominee and Democrat nominee that we the people want as representatives of the respective parties and then the people should be able to vote without fraudulent voting machines - both the mechanical ones and the human ones! Corruption is so entrenched in our world society that we don't even see it. Now, many voters are undergoing an awakening and have spoken in huge numbers across the land. We the people are dangling on a thread created by the establishment for decades.]
Of the three remaining GOP candidates, which is the most likely to move us toward Constitutionally limited government, free markets, and fiscal responsibility?
Trump. Not because he raves on about how committed to the Constitution he is like the other two. Possible that none of them will get back to limited govt. The real question here is how much more the next prez will grow govt. Only Trump can't be pinned with growing govt but Kasich and Cruz have been in govt forever, part and parcil of the problem. Free Markets? Trump, no contest. He's lived that his whole life! Cruz wrote the TPA and the vote was held in secret (but nothing in govt is ever really secret if you know where to look) and Cruz pushed for it and he pushed others to vote for it. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/08/ted-... That answers the "free markets" question. Fiscal Responsibility? Trump has been much more fiscally responsible just in this campaign than the other two. He couldn't build what he's built if he wasn't. The other two have never, at least Cruz, had to be fiscally responsible since they have added to the YUUGE debt we enjoy in America.
But... you ask the wrong question I think. Here's the right question: why are so many voters turning away from the Republican party? And the Dem party, too? That question was answered in the article. Repeatedly.
Our founders' intent was that our loyalty should be to the Constitution above party affiliation.
That being said, you may be right about Trump. Of the three or four Trump probably is the most likely to move us toward constitutionally Limited government.
Cruz is and always has been a Dominionist Trojan Horse. Cruz isn't the great crusader that you think he is. Here is Cruz' REAL record before the SCOTUS. Which of the following did he defend the Constitution?? (apologies AFA for the length but you know no Cruzer is going to actually look at the link)
The most lopsided loss came in Cruz’s first argument before the Supreme Court in October 2003. It was a case called Frew v. Hawkins, and involved a states’ rights issue and Medicaid funding. In 1996, Texas reached a settlement — via consent decree — in a class-action lawsuit against the Texas Health and Human Services Commission over allegations that the state failed to improve health care to poor children per Medicaid requirements. The plaintiffs later argued, however, that the state was not living up to its legal commitment. Cruz argued the state was not bound by the consent decree because of state sovereignty rights afforded by the 11th Amendment.
In his book, “A Time for Truth: Reigniting the Promise of America,” Cruz wrote that while he quietly harbored doubts about winning the case, he went into oral arguments feeling confident.
Things did not go well for Cruz, who wrote, “For my thirty minutes in Frew, there was not a single friendly question directed toward me. The justices were ripping me limb from limb. I felt like a chunk of tuna thrown to a school of sharks.”
One of the justices asking pointed questions was Scalia, who pointed out that Texas’ own attorney general was the one who agreed to the consent decree. “Why isn’t that the end of the case?” Scalia asked.
The ensuing ruling in favor of the plaintiffs was unanimous. Among that unanimous group was then Chief Justice William Rehnquist, for whom Cruz had years before served as a law clerk.
Cruz wrote that Rehnquist later joked with him about it. “Well, they say that with your first argument, you should pick a case you can’t lose or you can’t win,” Cruz recalled Rehnquist telling him, with a smile. “Ted … I think you chose wisely.”
Verdict: A loss.
Cruz’s second trip to the Supreme Court went a bit better, but was short of a full victory. The 2004 case, Dretke v. Haley, involved a man, Michael Haley, who was sentenced to 16 years in prison for stealing a calculator from a Texas Wal-Mart.
Although the crime was a misdemeanor that carried a maximum two-year sentence, Haley was charged under the state’s “habitual offender” law due to prior offenses — and that resulted in the longer prison sentence. Several years later, however, a new lawyer discovered that Haley’s criminal record did not meet the standards required to charge someone as a habitual offender.
On behalf of the state, Cruz argued that Haley had waited too long to contest the error.
”You’ve conceded that this sentence is unlawful?” Justice Anthony Kennedy asked during oral arguments.
Cruz said yes.
“Well then, why are you here? Is there some rule that you can’t confess error in your state?” Kennedy asked.
No, Cruz responded, saying that the state was concerned about the precedent it would set for other cases.
“Well, so a man does 15 years so you can vindicate your legal point in some other case?” Kennedy continued. “I just don’t understand why you don’t dismiss this case and move to lower the sentence.”
According to the Texas Tribune, Cruz sensed he did not have the votes to win the case, and switched strategies. Rather than asking the court to back the state’s position, he asked the justices to remand the case back to a lower court. That’s what happened, and Haley was sentenced to time served, meaning he did not have to go back to prison.
“I would regularly talk to my students about the Haley case as a good example of how an advocate can rescue victory from the jaws of defeat,” Cruz said in 2012.
Cruz twice argued in front of the Supreme Court in cases concerning Jose Medellin, a Mexican citizen convicted of the rape and murder of two girls, ages 14 and 16, in 1993. Years after his conviction, the International Court of Justice raised the issue that Medellin and others were entitled to the counsel of Mexican diplomats at the time of their arrests, per the Vienna Convention treaty. Even President George W. Bush issued a memo directing states to comply with the International Court of Justice and state courts to review the cases of Mexicans facing the death penalty.
In 2005, the court ruled 5-4 that Medellin had not exhausted his state court appeals, and it sent the case back to a Texas state court. The case came back to the Supreme Court, and in 2007 Cruz again argued on behalf of the state. In a 6-3 decision in 2008, the court sided with Cruz and concluded that the treaty was not binding upon state courts until the treaty is enacted into law by Congress.
Cruz called it, “By any measure the biggest case of my tenure as solicitor general.”
Verdict: A win.
Another case with mixed results, League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, came in 2006. The case involved redistricting maps approved by the Republican-controlled state Legislature in 2003. Opponents argued the maps were drawn in a partisan way that violated the U.S. Constitution and the federal Voting Rights Act, resulting in the disenfranchisement of minority voters.
Cruz argued that the framers of the Constitution knew full well that politicians would make political decisions regarding redistricting, and so he argued that those decisions should be left to elected legislatures, not unelected federal judges.
“In other words, of course the legislators who had redrawn Texas’ congressional districts had been political, but there was nothing unconstitutional or illegal about politicians being political,” Cruz wrote in “A Time for Truth.”
Cruz boasted in the book that “[u]ltimately, our argument prevailed.” And, in fact the Supreme Court voted 5-4 that the redistricting plan did not violate the Constitution. However, the court also ruled that one of the districts in the map did violate the federal Voting Rights Act. Bottom line, the state had to redraw the boundaries of that district — a large one — but did not have to redraw the entire map.
The case of Smith v. Texas in 2007 was over the propriety of a death sentence for LaRoyce Smith, who was convicted in the 1991 shooting and stabbing of a 19-year-old woman. The Supreme Court voted 5-4 to set aside Smith’s death sentence — though not the conviction — because the jury was not given an opportunity to consider his low IQ of 78. In 2008, Smith agreed to a sentence of life in prison.
This was another death penalty case involving a man who suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, Scott Panetti, who was convicted of killing his wife’s parents in 1992. The court was asked to consider whether the state could execute someone who was so mentally ill that he lacked a rational understanding of why he was being executed.
While Cruz argued that Panetti was rational enough to understand that he committed two murders, Justice Kennedy responded, “That’s different from having a rational capacity to understand the nature and justification for the punishment.”
Cruz lost this one in another 5-4 decision, with the court ruling that Panetti could not be executed because he lacked the ability to comprehend his death sentence. The case was sent back to a lower court in Texas to reassess Panetti’s mental state. He remains on death row.
This was actually a Louisiana case involving the death penalty for a man, Patrick Kennedy, convicted of the 1998 rape of his 8-year-old stepdaughter. At issue was whether it was constitutional to extend the death penalty beyond just murder cases, to include child rapists. Cruz argued in support of the state of Louisiana on behalf of Texas and other states that had similar laws. The court ruled 5-4 against Louisiana, finding that the death penalty for raping a child violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
This was the lone case Cruz argued as a private lawyer, for Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, and it involved a patent infringement case, Global-Tech Appliances v. SEB S.A,related to a deep fryer. Cruz argued in 2011 on behalf of his firm’s client, SEB S.A., that a subsidiary of Global-Tech had violated SEB’s patent. The legal issues in the case were more complex than a simple patent infringement, but the important thing for our purposes is to note that the court voted 8-1 in favor of Cruz’s client.
Verdict: A win.
Cruz’s Supreme Court record doesn’t support the ad’s implication that he “won” the nine cases he argued before the court. Cruz had clear victories in only two.
appreciate your post, but too long. I don't think many people have that much time to read a book. just make it shorter please.
Super, Joanne. I found this interesting and compelling information. thanks for your research. And the link to back it up from a credible source.
Gayla, you are a VERY impressive person. You know everything about Trump's finances, you know everything he has or hasn't read, you know exactly what he thinks. Your are, let me think, yes, unbelievable! I mean that in the truest possible way. Cruz has been in govt in one form or the other for all but his college years and the short duration as a lawyer with a law firm. Otherwise, he's been in govt his entire adult life. You are only counting his very short term as Senator. By government, I mean getting paid by taxpayers.
I truly believe it will require numerous civil lawsuits on Trumps part to sort it all out.
Great pix, Tom. When I disagreed with the question, it was only in regards to the topic of the message, not in general. Probably the answer to that question in a broader scope is yours - because neither party pays attention to the Constitution but acts in their self interest.