Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) formally announced his candidacy for the GOP presidential nomination in a speech at Liberty University in Virginia this week. While his stance on all the key policy issues of the day are not known in great detail, we will analyze his remarks - and those of all candidates - in terms of their comportment with the constitution and the principles of liberty.
The Good:
Senator Cruz openly called for a return to lawful federal governance under the constitution, saying
"It's time to reclaim the constitution of the United States."
He called for the abolition of the Internal Revenue Service.
This agency has been one of the greatest tools of political harassment and naked tyranny by presidents since its inception, and cries out for abolition.
Senator Cruz called for a simple flat tax on incomes.
This position requires additional clarification. While on the surface, a flat tax seems like a fair and workable solution to our current incomprehensible, punitive, and confiscatory income tax, there would need to be policies in place to strictly limit the amount of income to be seized, and to prevent the use of the current so-called "progressive" taxation as advocated by Karl Marx; wherein the more money you earn the higher percentage of income you must surrender in taxes, e.g., a maximum tax of 12% would mean if you earn $1,000,000, you pay $120,000 in taxes, and if you earn $50,000, you pay $6,000. That's what president Obama is fond of repeating: "Everybody plays by the same rules."
He called for the repeal of Obamacare.
Obamacare is an unmitigated disaster by any objective measure, and it is unconstitutional and an affront to liberty notwithstanding what nine politically-connected robed lawyers at the Supreme Court say.
Senator Cruz called for universal school choice.
This is a fundamental right that is denied most people in the US; especially the poor. This position is in line with both liberty and the constitution, provided his solution involves dissolution of the federal Department of Education and leaving it up to the states, or a passing a constitutional amendment to enshrine the right on a national level.
The senator also called for securing the borders, upholding the Second Amendment, ending government surveillance of innocent Americans, and defending the US against Islamic terrorism.
All good, senator; depending on how you intend to defend the US. Please not through continued undeclared wars, drone strikes across the planet, and a personal, presidential "Kill List," as is the current strategy of Nobel Peace Price laureate, Barack Obama.
The Bad:
The senator called for a president that "works to defend the sanctity of human life."
While all presidents should treasure the value of human life, this is clearly a reference to abortion. While the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision is a textbook case of bad law and tortured logic, it is not the place of the federal government to make law concerning abortion, it is a right reserved to the states.
He called for a president who "...upholds the sanctity of marriage."
Again, while I hope that our president is someone who values the sanctity of his or her marriage vows, the constitution provides no role for the head of the executive to make law or advocate about who can marry whom. Gay marriage is an issue for the states, and in truth should be merely between the individuals choosing to marry.
Senator Cruz called for America to stand with Israel and a president who will never allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon.
This is both good and bad. Senator Cruz, along with every other politician and commentator who endlessly pontificates on this subject, needs to state a specific policy. We can "stand" with Israel by declaring their right to exist free from terrorism and military attack - or we can pledge to plunge ourselves into a war of Biblical proportions if and when Israel's enemies rise against them once again. We can discourage the Iranians from obtaining a nuclear bomb through sanctions and diplomatic pressure, while constantly repeating that, "the military option remains on the table," or we can acknowledge the fact that we cannot prevent a determined Iran from obtaining a bomb short of invading that country with a million-man (and woman) army. A real national conversation needs to be had about what we (the people - not the government) are prepared to do and not prepared to do when it comes to defending Israel and/or imposing our will on the Greater Middle East.
Overall, Senator Cruz's message was a positive and refreshing one. If he sticks to the constitution as a guide he will have the one thing no Republican candidate has had in recent memory; credibility and solid moral and logical ground upon which to stand and make his case.
The Good:
Senator Cruz openly called for a return to lawful federal governance under the constitution, saying
"It's time to reclaim the constitution of the United States."
He called for the abolition of the Internal Revenue Service.
This agency has been one of the greatest tools of political harassment and naked tyranny by presidents since its inception, and cries out for abolition.
Senator Cruz called for a simple flat tax on incomes.
This position requires additional clarification. While on the surface, a flat tax seems like a fair and workable solution to our current incomprehensible, punitive, and confiscatory income tax, there would need to be policies in place to strictly limit the amount of income to be seized, and to prevent the use of the current so-called "progressive" taxation as advocated by Karl Marx; wherein the more money you earn the higher percentage of income you must surrender in taxes, e.g., a maximum tax of 12% would mean if you earn $1,000,000, you pay $120,000 in taxes, and if you earn $50,000, you pay $6,000. That's what president Obama is fond of repeating: "Everybody plays by the same rules."
He called for the repeal of Obamacare.
Obamacare is an unmitigated disaster by any objective measure, and it is unconstitutional and an affront to liberty notwithstanding what nine politically-connected robed lawyers at the Supreme Court say.
Senator Cruz called for universal school choice.
This is a fundamental right that is denied most people in the US; especially the poor. This position is in line with both liberty and the constitution, provided his solution involves dissolution of the federal Department of Education and leaving it up to the states, or a passing a constitutional amendment to enshrine the right on a national level.
The senator also called for securing the borders, upholding the Second Amendment, ending government surveillance of innocent Americans, and defending the US against Islamic terrorism.
All good, senator; depending on how you intend to defend the US. Please not through continued undeclared wars, drone strikes across the planet, and a personal, presidential "Kill List," as is the current strategy of Nobel Peace Price laureate, Barack Obama.
The Bad:
The senator called for a president that "works to defend the sanctity of human life."
While all presidents should treasure the value of human life, this is clearly a reference to abortion. While the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision is a textbook case of bad law and tortured logic, it is not the place of the federal government to make law concerning abortion, it is a right reserved to the states.
He called for a president who "...upholds the sanctity of marriage."
Again, while I hope that our president is someone who values the sanctity of his or her marriage vows, the constitution provides no role for the head of the executive to make law or advocate about who can marry whom. Gay marriage is an issue for the states, and in truth should be merely between the individuals choosing to marry.
Senator Cruz called for America to stand with Israel and a president who will never allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon.
This is both good and bad. Senator Cruz, along with every other politician and commentator who endlessly pontificates on this subject, needs to state a specific policy. We can "stand" with Israel by declaring their right to exist free from terrorism and military attack - or we can pledge to plunge ourselves into a war of Biblical proportions if and when Israel's enemies rise against them once again. We can discourage the Iranians from obtaining a nuclear bomb through sanctions and diplomatic pressure, while constantly repeating that, "the military option remains on the table," or we can acknowledge the fact that we cannot prevent a determined Iran from obtaining a bomb short of invading that country with a million-man (and woman) army. A real national conversation needs to be had about what we (the people - not the government) are prepared to do and not prepared to do when it comes to defending Israel and/or imposing our will on the Greater Middle East.
Overall, Senator Cruz's message was a positive and refreshing one. If he sticks to the constitution as a guide he will have the one thing no Republican candidate has had in recent memory; credibility and solid moral and logical ground upon which to stand and make his case.
RSS Feed