[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Texas Senator Ted Cruz makes it no secret that he holds the Constitution in high regard. Unlike our current president, whose past legal expertise is murky at best, Sen. Cruz is a bona fide legal scholar. So, while conservatives are understandably dismayed by the Supreme Court’s recent bout of judicial activism with regards to the adulteration of the definition of marriage, Cruz offers a glimmer of hope with a bit of advice:
States should ignore the ruling.[/vc_column_text][banner300 banner=”5517620b381df”][vc_column_text]In a recent interview with NPR, Cruz revealed that the court’s ruling only applies to the parties involved. Politico summarized Cruz’s position:
“Those who are not parties to the suit are not bound by it,” the Texas Republican told NPR News’ Steve Inskeep in an interview published on Monday. Since only suits against the states of Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan and Kentucky were specifically considered in the Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which was handed down last Friday, Cruz — a former Supreme Court clerk — believes that other states with gay marriage bans need not comply, absent a judicial order.
Cruz blasted the decision and the justices, saying,
“It is not healthy for our democracy when judges on our Supreme Court are violating their judicial oath. And in both the Obamacare decision and the marriage decision, the justices decided that they wanted to re-write federal law and re-write the constitution. That’s not the way our Constitution operates, and, and it is a sad moment for the court when you have judges seizing authority that does not belong to them.”
He also called for a constitutional amendment to remedy the issue:
“This week in response to both of these decisions, I have called for another constitutional amendment – this one that would make members of the Supreme Court subject to periodic judicial retention elections. As a very real check, 20 states have retention elections they’ve put in place, if judges overstep their bounds, violate the constitution, then the people have a check to remove them from office. I’ve called for that change. That is very much front and center something I intend to campaign on. And marriage and religious liberty are going to be integral, I believe, to motivating the American people to come out and vote for what’s ultimately restoring our constitutional system.”
Though Cruz makes some interesting points, can states really disregard the ruling?
As valedictorian of his high school, cum laude graduate of Princeton, magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law, the primary editor of the Harvard Law Review and a former Supreme Court clerk, it’s undeniable that when it comes to the Constitution, Cruz knows his stuff. Even the famously-liberal law professor Alan Dershowitz has admitted that Cruz is “off-the-charts brilliant.”
In truth, few in this country have as capable a grasp on the law as Ted Cruz. While applying this ruling only to the parties involved would be unpopular with many liberals, the logic is sound and is what our republic demands.
Same-sex marriage was banned by a healthy majority of states- 32 in all. Further, while the justices haphazardly applied the law to the issue, they clearly violated both First and Tenth Amendment protections.
Our republic demands that voters and the states reign supreme, not the nine unelected justices, the majority of whom are content to contort the law to fit their radical sense of social justice.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]