Cruz Thread

[Lily_Bernans]

Cruz = All men are created equal. These truths are self-evident. They are endowed by their creator with unalienable Rights (That means the Government can’t give these rights and the Government therefore can’t take AWAY these rights). Governments are instituted to secure the people with LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Unless something extremely out of the ordinary occurs, I will be supporting Senator Cruz this fall. I will be supporting America.

“All men are created equal…” applies to citizens of the United States, however the 14th Amendment makes it clear that unborn humans are not yet “citizens”:

“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Clearly, to acquire the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, one has to be born, according to the framers of the US Constitution, and the US Constitution is what the Supreme Court justices have to follow when making their interpretations. Justices do not follow their conscience; they follow the US Constitution.

Personally, I am opposed to abortion; however, given the way the Constitution is written, the writers did not extend unalienable rights to the unborn. Abortion is a sad state of affairs, but under the US Constitution, the unborn do not have rights. Given that, though I do not believe in depriving a future person of his or her life, I believe abortion should be legal in the US because of the way the Constitution is written. Catholics need to exhort people to follow their faith, to respect the sanctity of life, and stop trying to change a law that probably won’t be overturned during the lifetime of anyone living today, if ever.

If stopping abortion-on-demand is your vocation, what did you do today to try to stop it? (That’s rhetorical; no one ever answers.) No one here is going to change his or her mind.

 

[Tomdstone]

“All men are created equal…” applies to citizens of the United States, however the 14th Amendment makes it clear that unborn humans are not yet “citizens”:

“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Clearly, to acquire the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, one has to be born, according to the framers of the US Constitution, and the US Constitution is what the Supreme Court justices have to follow when making their interpretations. Justices do not follow their conscience; they follow the US Constitution.

Personally, I am opposed to abortion; however, given the way the Constitution is written, the writers did not extend unalienable rights to the unborn. Abortion is a sad state of affairs, but under the US Constitution, the unborn do not have rights. Given that, though I do not believe in depriving a future person of his or her life, I believe abortion should be legal in the US because of the way the Constitution is written. Catholics need to exhort people to follow their faith, to respect the sanctity of life, and stop trying to change a law that probably won’t be overturned during the lifetime of anyone living today, if ever.

If stopping abortion-on-demand is your vocation, what did you do today to try to stop it? (That’s rhetorical; no one ever answers.) No one here is going to change his or her mind.

Well, Cathoholic declared his support for Ted Cruz and publicized Cruz’s strong stand against abortion. According to Ted Cruz: “Every human life is a precious gift from God and should be protected from the moment of conception until the moment of natural death,” Cruz also supports a personhood law for the unborn.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I am aware that some Catholic officials do this.

But calling oneself or someone else Catholic is not enough justification; formation of proper conscience is necessary.

The Vatican has made it crystal clear, even Pope Francis who is often portrayed as some kind of Western liberal, that abortion is not the same as the issues like the environment.

I’m not sure how much more clearly they can spell it out.

The “culture of death” arose with contraceptive use in the 1960s. Since then, the US has had several Republican presidents. Why have they not put a stop to abortion since you seem to think the Republican Party cares so much.

Personally, I think it’s just a Republican talking point. I don’t think most care one way or the other.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Well, Cathoholic declared his support for Ted Cruz and publicized Cruz’s strong stand against abortion. According to Ted Cruz: “Every human life is a precious gift from God and should be protected from the moment of conception until the moment of natural death,”

Everyone has a right to vote for whoever he or she wants to vote for. That’s not my point. My point is that abortion-on-demand follows the US Constitution, and according to the US Constitution, the unborn do not enjoy “unalienable” rights.

 

[Tomdstone]

Everyone has a right to vote for whoever he or she wants to vote for. That’s not my point. My point is that abortion-on-demand follows the US Constitution, and according to the US Constitution, the unborn do not enjoy “unalienable” rights.

Cruz does not agree, or at least thinks that the law can be changed so that the unborn are persons:
GEORGE: Now, do you believe that unborn babies are persons within the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and if so will you call on Congress to use its authority under the Fourteenth Amendment, pursuant to Section 5, to protect the unborn? Or do you take the view, as some do, that we can’t do that until Roe v. Wade is overturned, either by the court itself or by constitutional amendment? Where do you stand on that?

CRUZ: Listen, absolutely yes. I think the first obligation of everyone in public office is to protect life. Life is foundational. In fact, as you look at the Declaration, that ordering of unalienable rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, I think it’s a very deliberate ordering. Without life there is no liberty, and without liberty there is no pursuit of happiness. That each builds upon the other, and I very much agree with the Pope’s longstanding, and prior popes before him, longstanding call to protect every human life from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death.
liveactionnews.org/cruz-congress-can-end-abortion-without-the-supreme-court/

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Cruz does not agree, or at least thinks that the law can be changed so that the unborn are persons:
GEORGE: Now, do you believe that unborn babies are persons within the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and if so will you call on Congress to use its authority under the Fourteenth Amendment, pursuant to Section 5, to protect the unborn? Or do you take the view, as some do, that we can’t do that until Roe v. Wade is overturned, either by the court itself or by constitutional amendment? Where do you stand on that?

CRUZ: Listen, absolutely yes. I think the first obligation of everyone in public office is to protect life. Life is foundational. In fact, as you look at the Declaration, that ordering of unalienable rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, I think it’s a very deliberate ordering. Without life there is no liberty, and without liberty there is no pursuit of happiness. That each builds upon the other, and I very much agree with the Pope’s longstanding, and prior popes before him, longstanding call to protect every human life from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death.
liveactionnews.org/cruz-congress-can-end-abortion-without-the-supreme-court/

He didn’t say a word about HOW he would go about giving the unborn rights. Talking around a subject isn’t going to win him voters. That’s what Trump does, and you see what’s happening to him. Cruz won’t be the nominee, though I wish he or Trump were. They should be. They have been working toward nomination and they’ve garnered the votes. Kasich has been too distant, but the Republican Party will do what it wants, even if that means drafting Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney.

 

[SuperLuigi]

=Lily Bernans;13819060]The “culture of death” arose with contraceptive use in the 1960s. Since then, the US has had several Republican presidents. Why have they not put a stop to abortion since you seem to think the Republican Party cares so much.

As far as “caring” goes, this has been said before: “no one cares more about you than you”. I’ve found that true in almost all cases.

One reason why abortion is still legal is because when push comes to shove, people are willing to let it be for their own selfish reasons. For others it just isn’t as important. It gets shoved into the divisive social issues category so that instead we can all talk about money, money, money, namely from people who are getting a government check in the mail.

I think the GOP in some cases is just a mirror for that if nothing else for the sake of winning. If there are people who say that they’ll vote just based on subsidies and sell out every single Christian principle to get them, what do people expect the result to be? Politicians hear that language and get wishy-washy. That’s part of the reason why there’s an establishment class.

Jason Lewis, Glenn Beck and Alex Jones have touched on this to some extent.

Personally, I think it’s just a Republican talking point. I don’t think most care one way or the other.

Abortion is an issue for many religious voters. Maybe not a lot, as evangelicals have shown an early preference in some states for the GOP frontrunner and it is something that is talked about to be sure.

Many republicans from conservative areas have a pretty pro-life voting record that’s worth noting.

But I also think folks need to understand I am not on here to defend the GOP because it’s the GOP. They just happened to be a more pro-life party for now.

If the GOP and DEM switched platforms, there would be a lot of Catholics doing the same.

I know when I vote republican, that it’s really to reduce the damage that’s being done, not because republican politicians or the party is somehow saintly in all things. When I vote, I throw aside all personal vendettas that I can, and when that’s done and people stop asking “yeah, well, what government do for me?” they lose a lot of their power over us.

See, I feel in control because I say consistently that if they want my vote so bad, then they’ll adhere to Catholic teaching on issues like abortion.

It’s about principle, not party.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

As far as “caring” goes, this has been said before: “no one cares more about you than you”. I’ve found that true in almost all cases.

One reason why abortion is still legal is because when push comes to shove, people are willing to let it be for their own selfish reasons. For others it just isn’t as important. It gets shoved into the divisive social issues category so that instead we can all talk about money, money, money, namely from people who are getting a government check in the mail.

I think the GOP in some cases is just a mirror for that if nothing else for the sake of winning. If there are people who say that they’ll vote just based on subsidies and sell out every single Christian principle to get them, what do people expect the result to be? Politicians hear that language and get wishy-washy. That’s part of the reason why there’s an establishment class.

Jason Lewis, Glenn Beck and Alex Jones have touched on this to some extent.

Abortion is an issue for many religious voters. Maybe not a lot, as evangelicals have shown an early preference in some states for the GOP frontrunner and it is something that is talked about to be sure.

Many republicans from conservative areas have a pretty pro-life voting record that’s worth noting.

But I also think folks need to understand I am not on here to defend the GOP because it’s the GOP. They just happened to be a more pro-life party for now.

If the GOP and DEM switched platforms, there would be a lot of Catholics doing the same.

I know when I vote republican, that it’s really to reduce the damage that’s being done, not because republican politicians or the party is somehow saintly in all things. When I vote, I throw aside all personal vendettas that I can, and when that’s done and people stop asking “yeah, well, what government do for me?” they lose a lot of their power over us.

See, I feel in control because I say consistently that if they want my vote so bad, then they’ll adhere to Catholic teaching on issues like abortion.

It’s about principle, not party.

I respect everyone’s right to vote for the candidate of his or her choice. But why should the US adhere to Catholic teachings? We are a republic that emphasizes separation of church and state, not a theocracy. We’d probably be better off if we were a theocracy, but we’re not.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

As far as “caring” goes, this has been said before: “no one cares more about you than you”. I’ve found that true in almost all cases.

One reason why abortion is still legal is because when push comes to shove, people are willing to let it be for their own selfish reasons. For others it just isn’t as important. It gets shoved into the divisive social issues category so that instead we can all talk about money, money, money, namely from people who are getting a government check in the mail.

I think the GOP in some cases is just a mirror for that if nothing else for the sake of winning. If there are people who say that they’ll vote just based on subsidies and sell out every single Christian principle to get them, what do people expect the result to be? Politicians hear that language and get wishy-washy. That’s part of the reason why there’s an establishment class.

Jason Lewis, Glenn Beck and Alex Jones have touched on this to some extent.

Abortion is an issue for many religious voters. Maybe not a lot, as evangelicals have shown an early preference in some states for the GOP frontrunner and it is something that is talked about to be sure.

Many republicans from conservative areas have a pretty pro-life voting record that’s worth noting.

But I also think folks need to understand I am not on here to defend the GOP because it’s the GOP. They just happened to be a more pro-life party for now.

If the GOP and DEM switched platforms, there would be a lot of Catholics doing the same.

I know when I vote republican, that it’s really to reduce the damage that’s being done, not because republican politicians or the party is somehow saintly in all things. When I vote, I throw aside all personal vendettas that I can, and when that’s done and people stop asking “yeah, well, what government do for me?” they lose a lot of their power over us.

See, I feel in control because I say consistently that if they want my vote so bad, then they’ll adhere to Catholic teaching on issues like abortion.

It’s about principle, not party.

And yet with all the Republican presidents we’ve had since 1973, none has made a dent in abortion on demand.

The SC threw away its best chance with PP v Casey in 1992, and that was a largely Republican appointed SC.

 

[Tomdstone]

He didn’t say a word about HOW he would go about giving the unborn rights.

He doesn’t have to. He said they are already protected. Ted Cruz is a lawyer who graduated cum laude from Princeton University and who graduated magna cum laude in 1995 with a Juris Doctor degree from Harvard Law school. While at Harvard Law, he was editor of the Harvard Law Review, and executive editor of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, and a founding editor of the Harvard Latino Law Review. He was a law clerk to William Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the United States. Ted Cruz says that the unborn are “absolutely” persons under 14th Amendment. BTW, what are your credentials to interpret the US Constitution?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

He doesn’t have to. He said they are already protected. Ted Cruz is a lawyer who graduated cum laude from Princeton University and who graduated magna cum laude in 1995 with a Juris Doctor degree from Harvard Law school. While at Harvard Law, he was editor of the Harvard Law Review, and executive editor of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, and a founding editor of the Harvard Latino Law Review. He was a law clerk to William Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the United States. Ted Cruz says that the unborn are “absolutely” persons under 14th Amendment. BTW, what are your credentials to interpret the US Constitution?

Where are Ted Cruz’s credentials to say seven SC justices are wrong?

BTW, I don’t need any credentials. I’m not interpreting. I’m only agreeing with the reasoning put forth by Harry Blackmun, whose credentials beat Cruz’s any day. No one’s put forth Cruz’s name for SC justice.

And, BTW, in the majority opinion, Blackmun DOES explain WHY the unborn are NOT considered persons under the US Constitution. I see NOTHING coming from Cruz as to why they should be so considered. I’m not going to change my opinion “just because Cruz says so.”

In any match-up of Cruz versus Blackmun, Blackmun would get my vote.

So, why does he say they ARE persons? Or doesn’t he have an answer for that?

 

[Tomdstone]

BTW, I don’t need any credentials. I’m not interpreting. I’m only agreeing with the reasoning put forth by Harry Blackmun, whose credentials beat Cruz’s any day…

And, BTW, in the majority opinion, Blackmun DOES explain WHY the unborn are NOT considered persons under the US Constitution.

The following article shows that " to the extent Justice Blackmun examined
the substantive law in these disciplines, his findings are clearly erroneous and as a whole amount to judicial error."
Issues in Law & Medicine, Volume 25, Number 3, 2010
Unborn Children as Constitutional Persons
Gregory J. Roden, J.D.
Justice Blackmun says: “We are not aware that in the taking of any census under this clause, a fetus has ever been counted.” This is obviously an erroneous argument against personhood, since the non-taxed native American Indians are constitutionally prohibited as being counted as persons under the Apportionment Clause of the Constitution and (before the passage of the the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924) the Fourteenth Amendment itself, but they are nevertheless persons, even though they have not been counted in the census.

 

[Peter_J]

Being non-negotiable, how would that affect someone’s vote? There have been Roman Catholic priests who have voted for candidates who want abortion to remain legal, although they might be personally opposed to it. There is Roman Catholic professor of Catholic theology who says she could vote for Sanders or Hillary.

See graciew’s post, which explain the Catholic teaching on that issue.

The larger question here is, What does it mean to say (see carpenter’s post) that faithful Catholics can negotiate on almost every issue (excepting a few, which he/she named) when at the voting booth? Hopefully Catholics wouldn’t “negotiate” their way into supporting Donald Trump or either of the Democratic candidates.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

See graciew’s post, which explain the Catholic teaching on that issue.

The larger question here is, What does it mean to say (see carpenter’s post) that faithful Catholics can negotiate on almost every issue (excepting a few, which he/she named) when at the voting booth? Hopefully Catholics wouldn’t “negotiate” their way into supporting Donald Trump or either of the Democratic candidates.

I think you’d find a lot of Catholics who are voting for one of the three. That only leaves Cruz and Kasich, and neither one is acceptable to most.

Considering the fact that Hillary has received about two million more votes than Sanders or Trump, some of those two million votes no doubt came from Catholics.

 

[TMC]

I don’t recall reading this in Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship. What is your source?

These so-called “non-negotiables” are something that CAF’s political arm came up with. They are not Church teaching. The Pope has actually made clear that there is not some list of “non-negotiables”.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

These so-called “non-negotiables” are something that CAF’s political arm came up with. They are not Church teaching. The Pope has actually made clear that there is not some list of “non-negotiables”.

Finally! Someone understands and knows!

 

[graciew]

These so-called “non-negotiables” are something that CAF’s political arm came up with. They are not Church teaching. The Pope has actually made clear that there is not some list of “non-negotiables”.

How about considering this:

1. The Church is a hierarchy as much as it may cost to sink in the USSCB would not contradict the Pope,it brings down a message adapted to you as a priest would do to their parish people.
2. The Pope said values are values. And as usual he would reinforce the value of life.
3. Do away with the word non negotiable . Read the message. And no matter how one turns it or from where you look at it all you find is one stepping higher to embrace the value from even a much wider perspective,and more open heart., and tighter.

And Jesus is the Life,and the Truth and the Way.
We know who we are doing this for…

 

[estesbob]

These so-called “non-negotiables” are something that CAF’s political arm came up with. They are not Church teaching. The Pope has actually made clear that there is not some list of “non-negotiables”.

And the Church has also made it clear that you cant vote for a pro-abortion candidate unless their opponent is more pro-abortion than they are.

Of the so called non-negotiables are there any on the list you believe a Catholic can licitly support? Seems like we are getting into a semantics argument rather than acknowledging that some things are so evil a Catholic can never support them

 

[Peter_J]

How about considering this:

1. The Church is a hierarchy as much as it may cost to sink in the USSCB would not contradict the Pope,it brings down a message adapted to you as a priest would do to their parish people.
2. The Pope said values are values. And as usual he would reinforce the value of life.
3. Do away with the word non negotiable . Read the message. And no matter how one turns it or from where you look at it all you find is one stepping higher to embrace the value from even a much wider perspective,and more open heart., and tighter.

And Jesus is the Life,and the Truth and the Way.
We know who we are doing this for…

I read something interesting the other day. Namely, this article from Raymond Arroyo, about Catholics punishing the Church (the “establishment”, in a manner of speaking) by voting for … well, I probably don’t need to name names.

 

[_Abyssinia]

These so-called “non-negotiables” are something that CAF’s political arm came up with. They are not Church teaching. The Pope has actually made clear that there is not some list of “non-negotiables”.

Cardinal Ruini used the term “non-negotiable principals” ten years ago: chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/49241?eng=y CNA article below goes in to the term in relation to its use by Cardinal Ruini

In an address Pope Benedict XVI gave, he drew “attention to principles which are not negotiable.” - and he named those principals: w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2006/march/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060330_eu-parliamentarians.html

Regarding another address Benedict XVI gave, CNA says, “Benedict referred to the entirety of values acknowledged and promoted by the social teaching of the Church.” (Source below)

Pope Francis said in an interview, “I have never understood the expression non-negotiable values,” responded the Pope. “Values are values, and that is it. I can’t say that, of the fingers of a hand, there is one less useful than the rest. Whereby I do not understand in what sense there may be negotiable values.”

CNA says, "Thus set in the Italian context, despite first appearances, Pope Francis actually puts himself in continuity with Benedict XVI in the answer he gave to “Corriere della Sera” on “non-negotiable values.”

Benedict XVI and Pope Francis both have underscored that none of the principles of the Church’s social teaching is less important, and that there is not a rank of values between life issues and social issues."

catholicnewsagency.com/news/all-values-are-non-negotiable-pope-says-in-new-interview/