If Ted Cruz Must Follow the Constitution, So Must the Government

“Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president,” declares The Washington Post.

Why not?

Because the Constitution says so.

Now when was the last time you heard proponents of the massive government state, as we know it, so concerned about a literal interpretation of the Constitution?

The Post coos, “The Constitution provides that ‘No person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President.’”

OK, then. If the Constitution is the law of the land on this point, it must be the law of the land on the following other points:

The right to bear arms must be literally and absolutely interpreted; this means no gun control.

Government may never respect an establishment of religion, even if that religion is Islam and the president and attorney general want that religion legally immune from criticism;

And here’s a really big one: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”;

In other words, the federal government must now stop doing most of what it currently does.

This includes, but is not limited to:

the progressive, wealth-redistributing income tax;

corporate and capital gains taxes;

federal regulatory control over the airwaves and the Internet;

the IRS;

the FDA;

the FCC;

the DEA;

the BATF;

the EPA;

the Department of Education;

all federal welfare and entitlement programs;

Obamacare;

and government ownership of lands for purposes other than military and defense or court houses.

None of these are specified as powers of the federal government by the Constitution. If the Constitution must be followed to the literal letter in Ted Cruz’s case, it must be followed — if anything — more literally in other, obviously more substantive cases.

If not, then why not?

If Ted Cruz cannot be president because of a strict and literal reading of the Constitution, then let’s have a strict and literal reading of the Constitution.

Let’s eliminate any and all laws and policies which violate the Constitution. Surely those laws have caused, and will continue to cause, more threats to liberty than the fact of Ted Cruz being born on one side or the other of the Canadian border ever could have posed.

And while we’re at it, let’s get about the business of impeaching the current president, who has violated both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution, time and again. Even though his time in office is (mercifully) ending, he can still do much damage in his last year, and it’s important to send a powerful message to future presidents that they may not get away with it.

How about that Big Government, hard core leftist progressives at The Washington Post and elsewhere? Or is the Constitution only worth fighting for when it’s convenient?