Constitution and Choices: a 4 Year President or a 20+ Year Reign of One More Liberal Justice

Ted Cruz was a guests in the Faith and Freedom Forum at First Baptist Church North, Spartanburg, SC. Sen. Cruz gave a spot on Christian testimony and 10 minutes to speak.. He shared how  faith interacted with the role as president and received a standing ovation.

The untimely death of Justice Antonin Scalia shatters the perspective for this election.

At the the Faith and Freedom Forum Sen. Cruz shared a bit of his experiences following the mentoring received as clerk for Justice Rehnquist. Having previously served as an associate justice, William Rehnquist served as chief justice for nearly 19 years, making him the fourth-longest-serving chief justice on the Supreme Court.

Cruz testify WeThePeople

Ted Cruz was talking about the significance of the Supreme Court at least as far back as early Fall, but the gravity of appointing justices to the Supreme Court struck me, and the audience, at a deeper level with Justice Scalia’s chair now vacant.

Cruz rehearsed before us a list of cases, some of which he himself argued before the Supreme Court – cases that were won by a mere 5-4 decision.  

Ted Cruz explained with each case that America is just ONE VOTE away from losing her values held dear by millions from the days of our Founding Fathers. Just one vote, unless the replacement is an “Originalist” like Scalia. Justice Scalia explains this below.


Cruz spoke about President George H.W. Bush’s choice between submitting the name of the conservative Judge Edith Jones and his eventual choice, the more moderate David Souter, for a Supreme Court vacancy because “he did not want to expend the political capital” to get the conservative confirmed by the senate. Cruz spoke against the selection of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., particularly his conditioned support for the Affordable Care Act. I can only imagine how many of you were devastated with Robert’s vote against us.

Cruz argued against the practice of nominating people with limited paper trails on the assumption that they can move more easily through the Senate confirmation process, citing examples in which Republicans have been burned, particularly with Souter, who often sided with the Supreme Court’s liberal bloc.

Cruz SC Resolve

“If, instead, President Bush had appointed Edith Jones, and Mike Luttig which is who I would have appointed, stated Cruz, Obamacare would have been struck down three years ago, and the marriage laws of all 50 states would be on the books.”

We can not overlook what CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER to our Constitution and American values there would be with another 20 year reign of ONE more liberal justice. Imagine a 20 or even 30 year reign of America’s values eroded or even erased. 

Imagine who Hillary Clinton would nominate. It is highly likely that the next president will appoint 2 or more justices to the Supreme Court. 

Who will you choose for president? It’s bigger than who WE WANT in the White House, it’s about who can give us branches of government that are consistent with our own Constitution and American values. Choose wisely with the Republican candidate.
“Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote…that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country.”
 ~ Samuel Adams

My photo is at the top of my blog. Just above are 3 parallel lines. Click them and select your desire to receive an email when there is a new post or to follow one post. Thank you!


3 thoughts on “Constitution and Choices: a 4 Year President or a 20+ Year Reign of One More Liberal Justice

  1. chip seiple says:

    Respectful Debate in politics? is an oxymoron.

    Concerning your allegations to Trump? What are your sources? What you say about the most recent kerfuffles w/ Cruz?

    • Chip, thanks for your comment. The source links you request are at the bottom of the post. Terminations should have been after Iowa. He has apologized. Jury out. Torn and checking on Cruz’s campaign. Anyway, I respectfully reply to you.

  2. 7delta says:

    Larry, I love you, brother, but I must disagree with you about Ted Cruz. I’ll just give you a taste of consistent documentation regarding a child born abroad to citizen parents and let you decide.

    The answer is taken straight from Flores-Villar v. U.S. Note the SCOTUS quotes. There is fundamental truth and it’s verifiable. ​I hear the Harvard Law Review article referenced frequently. We don’t have to guess or rely on current “legal” experts to interpret it for us. The answer has remained consistent since the Constitution was ratified.

    There is no right to be president. It is a job qualification. And important one, a Constitutional one, but a job qualification, nonetheless. Not being eligible does not infringe on anyone’s rights or privileges as a U.S. citizen.

    Neil Katyal is one of the two authors of a piece in the Harvard Law Review who wrote an article, On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”, published on March 11, 2015. He was previously also the Acting Solicitor General for the United States who, among other DOJ attorneys, submitted a Writ of Certiorari to The United States Court of Appeals For the Ninth Circuit in Ruben Flores-Villar, Petitioner v. United States of America, filed with the court in August, 2010.

    In the Flores-Villar brief, the attorneys representing the official position of the United States, including Mr. Katyal, wrote:


    “The fact that
    Congress has enacted a law under which some foreign born
    individuals acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by virtue
    of a parent’s citizenship does not mean that such
    individuals are not naturalized citizens for purposes of
    the Constitution.
    As explained above, when Congress
    enacts rules to govern acquisition of citizenship, it acts
    pursuant to its constitutional authority to establish a
    uniform rule of naturalization.”
    “See Miller, 523 U.S. at 434 n.11 (opinion of Stevens, J.) (“ Though petitioner
    claims to be a citizen from birth, * * * citizenship does
    not pass by descent. * * * Thus she must still meet the
    statutory requirements set by Congress for citizenship.”)
    see also id. at 453 (Scalia, J., concurring in the
    judgment) (“Petitioner, having been born outside the
    territory of the United States, is an alien as far as the
    Constitution is concerned.”)
    ; cf. Nguyen, 533 U.S. at 72
    (acquisition of citizenship through an unmarried citizen father (or married couple, or an unwed mother, as the brief explains and SCOTUS has upheld) “is a naturalization,” even though it “is retroactive
    to the date of birth”).

    “Constitutionally, of course, no foreign-born child is entitled to U.S.
    citizenship, and no U.S. citizen is entitled to bestow citizenship
    on a foreign-born child either at birth or later in the
    child’s life.”

    Ted Cruz was born alien to the Constitution, regardless of either parent’s citizenship, and was naturalized, retroactive to the date of birth by an act of Congress. He was naturalized at birth. How can a naturalized citizen be natural born?

    Mr. Katyal either made up all the SCOTUS cases supporting his position or he made up his rationale in the HLR article. He was wrong in that article and he knows it.

    Rubio is not eligible either, but requires another explanation for why, but that explanation retains the same basic principles of rights that are inherit to all sovereign countries. U.S. Jurisdiction over aliens on our soil is civil, not political. Political jurisdiction remains with the alien’s home country. A child born to aliens on our soil are also given political recognition in the parent’s home country. Regardless of how much they may love the U.S. and despite the misapplication of the 14th Amendment making the child born on the soil a citizen, without the tacit consent of the parents or the child, the child is a citizen by statute, not by nature, and has divided loyalties. Rubio and Jindal are anchor babies. Nikki Haley too, if it’s true that only her father naturalized after she was born.

    The natural born citizen requirement was inserted into the Constitution to “check foreign influence.” How can a child with membership in another political community (country) be natural born?

    Would you feel comfortable with al-Baghdadi sending one of his wives to the U.S. to give birth, then take the child, get on a plane and return to ISIS. All that child would have to do is return to the U.S., live 14 years and obtain the age of 35 to be eligible for the presidency, according to this new definition.

    What if al-Baghdadi took an American citizen woman as a sex slave and she birthed a child in Syria? Would that child meet the definition of natural born for Constitutional purposes? Do you want either of these children to be president, the commander and chief of the military? That’s the question, if we’re going to amend the Constitution through public perception instead of by the proper Constitutional amendment process.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s