Ted Cruz rips shreds off Obama's 'lawlessness'

THE LEGAL LIMIT: THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S
ATTEMPTS TO EXPAND FEDERAL POWER
U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Obama Administration DOJ’s
Expansive View of Federal Power
*
By U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Ranking Member,
Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on The Constitution,
Civil Rights and Human Rights

The Obama Administration, through its Department of Justice, has repeatedly advocated a
radical theory of sweeping federal power. The Administration’s view of federal power is so
extreme that, since January 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously rejected DOJ’s
arguments for more federal power nine times.
Notably, four Justices who were nominated by Democratic presidents denied the Obama
Administration’s overreaches—President Obama picked two of them himself. As Ilya Shapiro
noted in The Wall Street Journal on June 5, 2012, “When the administration can’t get even a
single one of the liberal justices to agree with it in these unrelated areas of law, that’s a sign there’s
something wrong its constitutional vision.”
If Obama’s Department of Justice were successful in its cases, the federal government would
have the power to:
• Attach a GPS to a citizen’s vehicle to monitor his movements, without having any cause
to believe that person committed a crime (United States v. Jones);
• Deprive landowners of the right to challenge potential government fines as high as
$75,000 per day and eliminate their ability to have a hearing to challenge those fines
(Sackett v. EPA);
• Interfere with a church’s selection of its own ministers (Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical
Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC);
• Override state law whenever the President desires (Arizona v. United States);
• Dramatically extend statutes of limitations to impose penalties for acts committed
decades ago (Gabelli v. SEC);
• Destroy private property without paying just compensation (Arkansas Fish & Game
Commission v. United States);
• Impose double income taxation (PPL Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue);
• Limit a property owner’s constitutional defenses (Horne v. USDA); and
• Drastically expand federal criminal law (Sekhar v. United States)

If the Department of Justice had won these cases, the federal government would be able to
electronically track all of our movements, fine us without a fair hearing, dictate who churches
choose as ministers, displace state laws based on the President’s whims, bring debilitating lawsuits
against individuals based on events that occurred years ago, and destroy a person’s private
property without just compensation

www.cruz.senate.gov...

the link goes into further detail on the cases.

Ted Cruz knows his stuff on the law. iirc he was a legal expert prior to politics.

these attempts to attack american citizens are very concerning. why do they want to interfere in church ministership appointments? sounds like the creation of a dictatorship.

The United States becoming a dictatorship?

Oh you don't say... that could never happen here in Murka.

But then again... I never remember being asked how I felt about granting Nazis amnesty to come work for the U.S. Government.

Or on how my tax-dollars should bail-out a company that makes asinine profits.

Or on how we should be attempting to overthrow Assad..

.. Or Gaddhfi

... Or Saddam.

Now that I think of it, I don't remember being able to vote on the legality of marijuana.

Or alcohol.

Or prescription pills.

I don't remember voting on wages, either...

Or political campaign contributions.

Oh, right! I also didn't get to vote on local police receiving military equipment.

Hmm, or on the labeling of GE/GMO products.

All of this was already done for me, now that I think about it. Someone decided all of this for me, because, you know, I don't DESERVE or have the RIGHT to anything. I get to do what I've been told I'm ALLOWED to do, by someone else, without me (or you) having any say in the matter.

Is America a dictatorship? Maybe. I believe tyranny for morons is more fitting.

But no, not a dictatorship. More of a "mind-control dictatorship in the guise of democracy," type of government.

I also didn't get to vote on injecting unsuspecting and unwilling citizens with sypihillis, or voting on the Navy's use of chemical tests on US citizens... using chemtrails.

Seems to me like the government is in more control then we are of our own lives. You just have to open your eyes, but then again, we've been conditioned to deny what's right in front of us.

An

indeed. it's an obligarchy. the banana republic. all that remains of democracy is the facade of it.

a reply to: RomeByFire
This post deserves applause.
So here it is from me.

"why do they want to interfere in church ministership appointments?"
Just like China, no wounder they get alone so well.
in china you know its a dicktatorship.
in the US they just fool you. or did.

sorry i'm a bad speller.

a reply to: Redlisted

SnF

The Elitists believe Facisim works better then democracy. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Every nation that has been taken over by facisist elitists has failed. This is not a left/right failure it is a facisist failure.

The people don't want to be told what to do, the people want to decide for themselves the direction of the nation they live in.

True intellect has the ability to transform a nation without shoving it down our throats. Unfortunately there are no intellects in charge at the moment, only facisist elitists who hold on to dead philosophy.

yet the irony is that they believe they are the enlightened ones... ain't it funny how the one's who proclaim to be 'enlightened' are usually the one's who're anything but.

a reply to: Redlisted

What the Ted Cruz website doesn't tell you is kind of scary as well.

For one thing, what this really means is that the US is hostage to the whims of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court could very well do a 180 on anyone or all of these proposals in the course of the next 8 years. And there's no higher authority in the US; the Supreme Court operates without any oversight. Worse, the Supreme Court is increasingly looking to foreign law and judicial opinions in making its rulings: see
www.nytimes.com...

The fact that this is a clear and present threat to US Constitutional sovereignty is indicated, albeit in the reverse in this article: www.theatlantic.com...

Understand that what I'm saying is that if the use of foreign law was not malignant, the Atlantic wouldn't have felt the need to defend it.

Having established that, the second thing Cruz web site doesn't tell you is that most of these initiatives have to do with property rights issues and those assaults on private property rights are intrinsically necessary for the implementation of the goals of Agenda 21, Agenda 2030 and 2050. Even if you don't own property, you will be affected by these UN initiatives because what they intend is to end private property ownership and personal modes of transportation. They are the tools of implementation of the NWO One World Government.

The other thing Ted Cruz doesn't tell you is that regardless of how long he and others fight against all this, it is a near certainty that the day is approaching when the Supreme Court will do a 180 on these issues and the UN Agenda will creep in via incrementalism. Its already started on the west coast.

Game, set, match.............you lose.

indeed. they too are in the pockets of the establishment.

perhaps there are a few good ones left... maybe. but they're fast disappearing.

once there is no separation of powers, and the line is very thin right now, all bets are off. no political system is immune from people desperate for power and control and democracy is no exception. but for some reason a lot of people have convinced themselves it is.

a reply to: Redlisted

Cruz is a smart fellow, and he's always shows he's willing to stand against tyranny. One reason I like him best for the ticket! The lawless one is indeed out of control, and would love a dictatorship.

This treatise was self-published (at the taxpayers' expense) in 2013.

Two years later ... still no Obama dictatorship.

Imagine that.

The argument here is that if the Justice Department had prevailed in these listed cases, that would have opened the floodgates to Federal Tyranny.

... except it wouldn't have. As Justice Alito pointed out regarding the Hobby Lobby et. al decision ... each case would have established a specific answer to a specific question not a wide-ranging legal precedent to let Obama do whatever he wanted.