A Time for Truth, by Ted Cruz: on Government Reform


ACLU: Censoring Citizens United would allow censoring a lot more

The Obama administration was asked at an oral argument [in the Citizens United case] if it could prohibit a company from using its general treasury funds to publish a book that discusses the American political system for 500 pages and then, at the end, says "Vote for X." President Obama's lawyer said, flat out, "Yes."

These radical claims for the authority to ban books and movies led me to dub the amendment's proponents the "Fahrenheit 451 Democrats," after Ray Bradbury's dystopian classic about book-burning government power run amok. And their positions were so radical that they lost one of their usual allies--the ACLU. To its credit, the ACLU blasted the proposed constitutional amendment: "Even proponents of the amendment have acknowledged that his authority could extend to books, television shows, or movies, such as Hillary Clinton's Hard Choice or a show like the West Wing, which depicted a heroic Democratic presidential administration during the crucial election years of 2000 and 2004.

Source: A Time for Truth, by Ted Cruz, p.314-5 Jun 30, 2015

Anthony Kennedy: World Court has no authority to bind US justice system

Our argument [against Texas having to follow World Court rulings] was that the President Bush's order usurped the authority of the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice Roberts asked if the president "can take action that's inconsistent with the determination of federal law by this Court?" Justice Kennedy echoed this theme. "I agree that we should give (the World Court's) determination great weight, but that's something different from saying that (the president) can displace the authority of this Court on that issue of law."

With an opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court agreed with Texas that the World Court had no authority whatsoever to bind the U.S. justice system. At the same time, it struck down the president's order, concluding it was unconstitutional for the president to unilaterally surrender the sovereignty of the United States of America.

Source: A Time for Truth, by Ted Cruz, p.165-6 Jun 30, 2015

Antonin Scalia: Congress decides if World Court has authority to bind US

Our argument [against Texas having to follow World Court rulings] was that the President Bush's order usurped the authority of the Supreme Court.

President Bush's executive order, Justice Scalia said, "Usually, when we have treaties that are not self-enforcing, the judgment of whether that international law obligation shall be made domestic law is a judgment for the Congress."

With an opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court agreed with Texas that the World Court had no authority whatsoever to bind the U.S. justice system. At the same time, it struck down the president's order, concluding it was unconstitutional for the president to unilaterally surrender the sovereignty of the United States of America.

Source: A Time for Truth, by Ted Cruz, p.165-6 Jun 30, 2015

George W. Bush: Executive orders trump World Court within US

Our argument [against Texas having to follow World Court rulings] was that the President Bush's order usurped the authority of the Supreme Court.

With an opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court agreed with Texas that the World Court had no authority whatsoever to bind the U.S. justice system. At the same time, it struck down the president's order, concluding it was unconstitutional for the president to unilaterally surrender the sovereignty of the United States of America.

Source: A Time for Truth, by Ted Cruz, p.165-6 Jun 30, 2015

John Roberts: World Court has no authority to bind US justice system

Our argument [against Texas having to follow World Court rulings] was that the President Bush's order usurped the authority of the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice Roberts captured the essence of our separation of powers argument (that the president was usurping the Supreme Court's authority). The Chief Justice asked if the president "can take action that's inconsistent with the determination of federal law by this Court?"

With an opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court agreed with Texas that the World Court had no authority whatsoever to bind the U.S. justice system. At the same time, it struck down the president's order, concluding it was unconstitutional for the president to unilaterally surrender the sovereignty of the United States of America.

Source: A Time for Truth, by Ted Cruz, p.165-6 Jun 30, 2015

Kirsten Gillibrand: First member of Congress to post official schedule daily

Gillibrand had built a reputation for bucking the standard way of doing things--she first won a seat in the House of Representatives by running as a Democrat who supported Second Amendment rights and opposed amnesty for illegal immigrants. Once elected, she became the first member of Congress to publish her entire official schedule every day, so that her constituents knew exactly with whom she met, including lobbyists and lawyers. She also made the point of publishing the earmark requests she had requested and received, as well as her own personal financial statement. As a senator, she authored parts of the STOCK Act, which imposed limits on the scandalous but legal practice of insider trading by members of Congress. That didn't win her any new friends among her colleagues.
Source: A Time for Truth, by Ted Cruz, p. 54 Jun 30, 2015

Ted Cruz: World Court has no authority to bind US justice system

Our argument [against Texas having to follow World Court rulings] was that the President Bush's order usurped the authority of the Supreme Court.

With an opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court agreed with Texas that the World Court had no authority whatsoever to bind the U.S. justice system. At the same time, it struck down the president's order, concluding it was unconstitutional for the president to unilaterally surrender the sovereignty of the United States of America.

Source: A Time for Truth, by Ted Cruz, p.165-6 Jun 30, 2015

Ted Cruz: Limits on individual campaign donations make things worse

For a statewide Senate race, we calculated that we'd need a minimum of $5 million, and ideally $10 million. In that effort, we confronted a problem--the federal government's campaign finance laws. A great many people, backed by the media, proclaim the need to control the amount of money being spent on political campaigns. Campaign finance laws are the Holy Grail of so-called good-government types who want to do SOMETHING to fix the problem. As is often the case in Washington, their solution makes things worse.

In Texas state government races, there are no limits on individual donations under state campaign finance laws. This had made it a lot easier for an unknown like me in the attorney general's race to raise money from a committed group of donors, compete, and potentially win against entrenched incumbents.

Source: A Time for Truth, by Ted Cruz, p.200-1 Jun 30, 2015

Ted Cruz: Campaign finance laws function as incumbent protection

In Texas state government races, there are no limits on individual donations under state campaign finance laws. This had made it a lot easier for an unknown like me to raise money from a committed group of donors.

By contrast, federal campaign finance laws make such an effort impossible in a race for US Senate. They impose strict limits on the amount any individual can contribute, in effect rewarding candidates with deep pockets who can self-finance (since there are no limits on what you can donate to yourself) or those who are already well-known across the state. Written by political incumbents, these rules function as incumbent protection laws, designed to combat what they see as a great evil--that some outsider could raise enough money to defeat them.

As a result (and by design), it is practically impossible for someone who is not an incumbent politician--without an existing, massive fund-raising apparatus--to raise enough money in small increments to run statewide in a large state like Texas.

Source: A Time for Truth, by Ted Cruz, p.200-1 Jun 30, 2015

Ted Cruz: Citizens United is free speech; opposing it is censorship

When a conservative group made a movie about Hillary Clinton (Hillary: The Movie), the Obama administration tried to fine the moviemaker. The group's name was Citizens United. Citizens United sued on the grounds that the group was exercising its right to free speech under the First Amendment, and the case went to the Supreme Court.

The Obama administration was asked at an oral argument if it could prohibit a company from using its general treasury funds to publish a book that discusses the American political system for five hundred pages and then, at the end, says "Vote for X." President Obama's lawyer said, flat out, "Yes."

These radical claims for the authority to ban books and movies led me to dub the amendment's proponents the "Fahrenheit 451 Democrats," after Ray Bradbury's dystopian classic about book-burning government power run amok.

Source: A Time for Truth, by Ted Cruz, p.314-5 Jun 30, 2015

  • The above quotations are from A Time for Truth
    Reigniting the Promise of America

    by Ted Cruz
    .
  • Click here for definitions & background information on Government Reform.
  • Click here for other issues (main summary page).
  • Click here for more quotes by Ted Cruz on Government Reform.
2016 Presidential contenders on Government Reform:
  Republicans:
Gov.Jeb Bush(FL)
Dr.Ben Carson(MD)
Gov.Chris Christie(NJ)
Sen.Ted Cruz(TX)
Carly Fiorina(CA)
Gov.Jim Gilmore(VA)
Sen.Lindsey Graham(SC)
Gov.Mike Huckabee(AR)
Gov.Bobby Jindal(LA)
Gov.John Kasich(OH)
Gov.Sarah Palin(AK)
Gov.George Pataki(NY)
Sen.Rand Paul(KY)
Gov.Rick Perry(TX)
Sen.Rob Portman(OH)
Sen.Marco Rubio(FL)
Sen.Rick Santorum(PA)
Donald Trump(NY)
Gov.Scott Walker(WI)
Democrats:
Gov.Lincoln Chafee(RI)
Secy.Hillary Clinton(NY)
V.P.Joe Biden(DE)
Gov.Martin O`Malley(MD)
Sen.Bernie Sanders(VT)
Sen.Elizabeth Warren(MA)
Sen.Jim Webb(VA)

2016 Third Party Candidates:
Gov.Gary Johnson(L-NM)
Roseanne Barr(PF-HI)
Robert Steele(L-NY)
Dr.Jill Stein(G,MA)
Please consider a donation to OnTheIssues.org!
Click for details -- or send donations to:
1770 Mass Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140
E-mail: submit@OnTheIssues.org
(We rely on your support!)

Page last updated: Feb 25, 2019