The Case against Cruz
All presidential candidates have their glaring weaknesses and shortcomings, some more pronounced than others, but all vulnerable to the American electorate. Ted Cruz gained my respect as a Senator, by saying over and over that he was representing the views of the people from his state of Texas. What I saw was a man whom I disagreed with profusely, almost to the point of disgust, but also a man that understood the way government was supposed to work. He has all but undone the underlying respect I had for him as a legislator, and has done so in a most ironic fashion.
Ted Cruz is a proclaimed originalist when it comes to interpreting the broad proclamations written into the US Constitution. Rather than seeing constitutional law as an ever-changing, adaptable-to-the-times document, Cruz views our constitution exactly as it was written, with no regard for the changing times that necessitate adaptability and applicability. There is nothing inherently disqualifying about being a constitutional originalist that should disqualify one from being President, but it is his willful ignorance of the originalist meaning behind the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment that is great cause for concern.
More than any other candidate in either party, Ted Cruz invokes religion at all turns. His completely respectable religious life is constantly injected into his admirable career as a public servant. The two are not mutually exclusive, but the line between the two is so fine, that it essentially erases the already blurred lines between church and states.
The intent of the Establishment Clause was to guard the public arena from the penetration of religion. To separate Church and State, yet understand the inherent value and place for each is essentially the driving force behind the Establishment Clause. Ted Cruz likes to site the framers intent when reading the Second Amendment, but refuses to acknowledge the intent with which Thomas Jefferson penned the words of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
While Ted Cruz is not trying to establish a national religion, he is refusing, at all campaign stops and speeches, to separate his public life from his private life, all of which feel more like one is watching a televanglist rather than a candidate for President.
As Americans, we cringe when we hear a Muslim proclaim in Arabic their love for their God. “Allahu Akbar,” they say as we fault them for being religious fanatics. At every rally he attends and every speech he gives , Ted Cruz is not content with simply saying “I’d like to thank God,” rather he says “To God be All the Glory,” which is roughly the English translation of “Allahu Akbar.”
Religion is an important fact of American life, but we are not electing a Priest, we are electing a President. Until Ted Cruz is able to, in a meaningful, reconcile the two, he is unfit for the highest office in the land, and in reality, any publicly elected office.
What makes us different from other countries is that we respect all religions and don’t put religious leaders in charge of the affairs of our country. We don’t have clerics, we don’t have rabbis, we don’t have priests in charge of running out government. Instead we have Jews, Christians, and Muslims, Athiests, Buddhists, and Hindus occupying government offices because we are an inclusive country guided by principles of humanity rather than those of religion.