Ted Cruz undecided on Rand's hemp amendment

[Brett85]

So where does Sen. Ted Cruz now stand on hemp? or is he still "fact" finding?

I don't know. There's a lot of issues that he hasn't seemed to take a position on.

 

[Coolidge/Dawes '24]

For those who doubt Cruz's steadfast commitment to the Tenth Amendment: he isn't the only liberty-minded senator to have some shortcomings in his understanding of constitutional federalism. Rand, too, has expressed views that are anathema to any originalist interpretation of states' rights: take his blind devotion to repairing the disintegrating roads, dams, bridges, and highways here in America, as opposed to the remote and far-distant trenches of the Middle East. Constitutionally, Congress has free reign to do neither, as evidenced by Madison's unecquivocal veto of an appropriations bill for "internal improvements" in 1817.

Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled "An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements," and which sets apart and pledges funds "for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense," I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated.

The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation within the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States.

Also, I think someone mentioned Ted Cruz's "alternative" to Obama's national gun registry (that is, his efforts to strengthen and salvage the pre-existing NICS - national background check - system). I, too, was a bit troubled by that. Stealing a hubcap from someone's car surely deserves swift legal retribution, but not lifetime disarmament. Neither does brewing up crystal meth on the stove or soliciting sexual favors for cash. I might mention, though, that Rand Paul forged an alliance with him on this, so both warrant criticism for their legislative tomfoolery.

Rand has also lent his support to federal regulation of gas pipes. He's backpedaled on his principled quibbles with the Civil Rights Act (as we saw in the speech he gave at Howard University). He's affirmed his agreement with the Supreme Court decision cementing Social Security into law, as a permanent fixture of our socio-political system. Both senators have their flaws, but if we yank them by the collar enough, maybe we can get them to wise up.

By the way, for those are (understandably) wary of Cruz's past associations with the Bush family: Pat Buchanan cast his vote for Bush Jr. in both presidential elections, even while excoriating and pounding away at him for his illegal wars. He also campaigned for Bush the Elder on strictly pragmatic grounds, and Murray Rothbard, one of Bush's fiercest critics, penned an opinion piece, to the chagrin of many libertarians, stating why he would prefer an encore of the Bush administration over the specter of a Clinton one. I've fallen for the allure of "guilt by association" myself, but let's hope that clarifies things a bit.

 

[fr33]

For those who doubt Cruz's steadfast commitment to the Tenth Amendment: he isn't the only liberty-minded senator to have some shortcomings in his understanding of constitutional federalism. Rand, too, has expressed views that are anathema to any originalist interpretation of states' rights: take his blind devotion to repairing the disintegrating roads, dams, bridges, and highways here in America, as opposed to the remote and far-distant trenches of the Middle East. Constitutionally, Congress has free reign to do neither, as evidenced by Madison's unecquivocal veto of an appropriations bill for "internal improvements" in 1817.



Also, I think someone mentioned Ted Cruz's "alternative" to Obama's national gun registry (that is, his efforts to strengthen and salvage the pre-existing NICS - national background check - system). I, too, was a bit troubled by that. Stealing a hubcap from someone's car surely deserves swift legal retribution, but not lifetime disarmament. Neither does brewing up crystal meth on the stove or soliciting sexual favors for cash. I might mention, though, that Rand Paul forged an alliance with him on this, so both warrant criticism for their legislative tomfoolery.

Rand has also lent his support to federal regulation of gas pipes. He's backpedaled on his principled quibbles with the Civil Rights Act (as we saw in the speech he gave at Howard University). He's affirmed his agreement with the Supreme Court decision cementing Social Security into law, as a permanent fixture of our socio-political system. Both senators have their flaws, but if we yank them by the collar enough, maybe we can get them to wise up a bit.

By the way, for those are (understandably) wary of Cruz's past associations with the Bush family: Pat Buchanan cast his vote for Bush Jr. in both presidential elections, even while excoriating and pounding away at him for his illegal wars. He also campaigned for Bush the Elder on strictly pragmatic grounds, and Murray Rothbard, one of Bush's fiercest critics, penned an opinion piece, to the chagrin of many libertarians, stating why he would prefer an encore of the Bush administration over the specter of a Clinton one. I've fallen for the allure of "guilt by association" myself, so let's hope that clarifies things a bit.

The only reason I support Rand is because I think he's lying to get elected (because he's Ron Paul's son).

As for Cruz:

If Obama attacking 7 or 8 countries during his presidency isn't good enough for the chickenhawk Cruz, one can only expect the bloodthirsty bastard to at least double that number. Fuck that murderous POS.

 

[Christian Liberty]

The only reason I support Rand is because I think he's lying to get elected (because he's Ron Paul's son).

This is wishful thinking. It might be true, but its still wishful thinking. Rand will still RULE as Rand, even if he is lying.

That said, what Rand says is at least broadly compatible with liberty, Cruz on the other hand...

As for Cruz:

If Obama attacking 7 or 8 countries during his presidency isn't good enough for the chickenhawk Cruz, one can only expect the bloodthirsty bastard to at least double that number. Fuck that murderous POS.

You nailed it...

 

[Taco John]

Seriously, folks, it's like a revolving door on impressions of Cruz. 'Cruz is an ally! No wait, Cruz isn't an ally anymore.' If he hasn't made up his mind yet, he hasn't made up his mind. That doesn't equate to a Yes or No.

Cruz is just smart and understands his audience and how to navigate them. It's easy for armchair libertarians who couldn't get elected to criticize someone who has gotten themselves planted on center stage and has constituents to manage.