2 votes

Ted Cruz Marijuana Comments


http://youtu.be/Tq8qvP3wn0Q

Ted Cruz Marijuana Comments

Full speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y43ocG9qFg

Texas Public Policy Foundation YouTube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/TexasPPF

Original Article:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/10/senator-ted-cruz-attac...

"Ted Cruz marijuana comments" Google results:
https://www.google.com/search?num=100&safe=off&site=&source=...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

cruz is wrong

original comment
http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3312858

the federal drug laws are unconstitutional.
if they want to take away Americans right to use drugs under the constitution they must first pass a constitutional amendment like the 18th amendment (alcohol Prohibition/the Volstead act) which was later repealed by the 21st amendment.
even then it would violate the spirit of Marbury v. Madison as the 18th amd did and obamacare etc does.

and i thought cruz was supposed to be some kind of fancy constitutional scholar.

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
Rand Paul 2016

I still dont have much trust

I still dont have much trust in cruz, but for the sake of others, this video is about how cruz was "misquoted"

And one thing, to the author of this video, i respect a person a hell'uve alot more who can recognise, admit, and own their hypocrasy, then some who wont, the worse is when they have an incline that they may be "wrong" yet still not change........and im not implying here that i am exempt from this, we'd all be perfect, if we never made mistakes, we wouldnt have the need to learn or change, if we thought we were perfect, so thankyou for knowing your not perfect, it makes you ......"perfect".....to me

Just in case you were

Just in case you were referring to me (among others), I wasn't one of those that crucified Cruz when it seemed that he had a different opinion than us concerning drugs. It's possible to have a difference of opinion without the other side being "evil". Also, I've read that thread about Cruz's statements before so I found out fairly early that he had been misrepresented. No, my opinion is not based on how close he follows Libertarian philosophy. It's based on if his actions demonstrate integrity. I don't feel like they did.

Hay man is that freedom rock???

Hay man is that freedom rock???

Yeah man

;

Well turn it up!

:D

I'd rather have a bottle in front o' me than a frontal lobotomy
www.tattoosbypaul.com
www.bijoustudio-atx.com

okay...

let's have the debate and this time let's tell the truth.

Is that Lew Alcindor?

...the old school WWF wrestler?

----

http://www.dailypaul.com/300348/senator-ted-cruz-and-wife-he...

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

It's probably true that Cruz

It's probably true that Cruz has been misrepresented. But I don't like his tactics regardless. Speeches too tailored and his tactics smack too much of politics to me. His use of the filibuster was not correct IMO. The filibuster was a special purpose tool created by the founders and IMO he abused it to gain media attention. Now they nerfed the filibuster and Ted Cruz was a large factor in that happening.

Cruz can stick it

I'm thoroughly unimpressed with him.

Ted Cruz votes WITH the

Ted Cruz votes WITH the Constitution 95% of the time. Amash votes with the Constitution 93%. So Cruz can go stick it? Did you even watch this video?

The question is whether the

The question is whether the rule of law (equal application of the law) should trump human rights. The gentleman in the video is suggesting that the rule of law trumps human rights.

Suppose the law states that everyone with red hair should be hanged, but a government official exempts a certain individual with red hair from the law. He has not applied the rule of law.

Good thing, or bad thing?

Now, what's the difference between that silly example and emperor Obama deciding to back off on MJ prosecutions?

Not that rule of law isn't important - it's critical to a fair justice system - but only in those cases where the laws are just. MJ laws, any libertarian would argue, are completely unjust.

Cruz is just wrong on this one.

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein

Cruz is wrong...

For suggesting a dialogue needs to take place regarding legalization? I think you missed the point, and your metaphor is asinine.

"MJ laws, any libertarian would argue, are completely unjust." Yes, ANY LIBERTARIAN would argue that point. Unfortunately, libertarians are not in power, Democrats and Republicans are, and most of them would NOT debate that point. Cruz is saying the debate needs to happen. What's your problem with that?

“Never think of pain or danger or enemies a moment longer than is necessary to fight them.”
www.youtube.com/user/RevolutionATX

Cruz is criticizing Obama for

Cruz is criticizing Obama for making an executive decision to not enforce the MJ laws on the books. Cruz is calling for the rule of law over human rights.

Cruz would evidently rather put people in cages for MJ than have the laws on the books ignored by the chief executive. How can any libertarian support that stance?

If Cruz were criticizing the emperor for not going after bankster crooks, (a valid criticism), he'd have a point. But not MJ.

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein

Respectfully, if I may

If you are going to have a Republic, a government based on law, the executive branch is the the chief law enforcer. If the executive can simply choose what laws to enforce or who can and who can't obey the laws, you no longer are operating as a Republic. The system then is a dictatorship, not a Republic. Cruz is right, I don't necessarily like the guy, but on this point he is correct.
To argue further, what right does the federal government, operating under the constitution, have to pass a law against MJ? IMO this is a state jurisdiction and not federal, that's why it took an amendment to the constitution to pass prohibition laws. The state has every right to challenge this based on the 10th amendment with nullification, but it's not the executives right to decide.

are you against jury nullification as well?

Judges will instruct jurors that they are supposed to agree with the laws when they are making their decision. If you were on a jury, would you convict somebody of a non-violent drug offense just because it is "the law"? Or would you vote non-guilty because it would be wrong to send somebody to jail regardless of the law? A more extreme situation, the Germans who were killing people in concentration camps during World War 2 were in fact "following orders."

The verdict of the jury is the responsibility

and duty of the jury, not the judge. That's why we have juries, that decision rests with them, as uncomfortable as it may be to some. If the jurors decide to not convict or to convict, I am aware of no law forcing them or holding them accountable for their decision, whether perceived right or wrong.

Not sure why you added "as well", is there a provision for the president to nullify existing laws of the country? Like a line item veto of an existing law?

lots of laws on the books are never enforced

For example, in New York City it is illegal to jaywalk. A brief period of time when Giuliani was mayor, the fact that this law was sometimes getting enforced in midtown actually made headlines. It actually raised a lot of public ire that people were getting ticketed for this. NYC is not unique. Thousands of jurisdictions across the US have antiquated laws that they never bother to get rid of, that don't get enforced.

The president can also nullify laws by giving pardons. Harry Browne, former Libertarian candidate, stated that his first act as president would be to grant a pardon to everybody in jail for a non-violent drug offense. Quite a great idea, IMHO.

So if Ted Cruz is really a stickler for enforcing all laws, just on principle, then he should be opposed to the power given to presidents to pardon people, which is granted by the Constitution.

We may be splitting hairs, although we do agree on Harry Browne

An executive pardon is not nullifying an entire law, it's wholly different than simply picking and choosing what laws apply and to whom. I think we agree that we have way too many laws, many are not enforced and some should be repealed. I don't believe the president has the power to simply pick and choose what laws he deems appropriate, that's a dictators prerogative not a president of a republic. Although that appears to be what's happening. Reminds me of the Richard Nixon quote, "if the president does it, it's not illegal"

who gives a fluck what his percentage is?

Anyone opposed to immediate legalization of marijuana is an asshole that I consider an enemy. Period.

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

When will folks realize that

When will folks realize that the government is a gang of thugs and that's all they are? Anytime a government thug acts in a more libertarian way than the law states he should act, that's a good thing.

More power to emperor Obama on this one, and down with Ted Cruz!

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein

kind of sad people on this site would down vote this post

It is the same attitude many Democrats take regarding Ron Paul … they cannot give him credit for being anti-war, etc., things they agree with, because Ron Paul took on the Republican label. A lot of Hillary Clinton supporters who slammed Bush for the Iraq wars etc., would still vote for warmonger Hillary who voted for these wars as well yet never credit Ron Paul because he is "on the other team" …

Anyway fact is, yup, Obama is more aligned with the Libertarians on this issue than is Ted Cruz.

I have been screaming this at people

Thanks for making this video.

Ron brought the Liberty movement together, Rand is expanding the crap out of it! :)