Mediaboss Marketing

CRUZ: Mark, I'm pretty sure that's the first time we've ever walked out to dance music. (LAUGHTER)

LEVIN: Well, I did think about holding hands, but...

(LAUGHTER)

... I didn't think that would come off right.

(LAUGHTER)

Well, it is my honor to be here with Senator Cruz. We're going to have a short discussion about the Constitution. How many of you support the Constitution?

(APPLAUSE)

So we're not at the DNC event here, that's obvious.

(LAUGHTER)

Senator Cruz...

CRUZ: I think the smell would be somewhat different.

LEVIN: Yes.

(LAUGHTER)

He means pot, of course.

(LAUGHTER)

Study ambiguity or something, right?

(LAUGHTER)

You're one of the leading constitutionalists, not just in the Senate, but in the country. And one of the problems we have in this country today is so much of what we do is not within the constitutional construct. You have introduced an amendment to the Constitution to place term limits on members of Congress.

(APPLAUSE)

So tell us why you did it and tell us about your amendment.

CRUZ: Well, Mark, I think it's one of the first and biggest steps we can take to actually drain the swamp.

(APPLAUSE)

You look across this country people are fed up with Washington. This election was the American people saying, enough already with the corruption in Washington and it's both parties. Its Democrats and Republicans who have been here too long, who've become captured by this city and -- and if you look at -- President Trump campaigned on draining the swamp, on term limits.

You look at congressional leaders. We've got majorities in both Houses, I think we ought to demonstrate that we heard the voters, bring up term limits, pass it, and send it to the states for ratification. And what's amazing is the support for this, it cuts across in this polarized time, you get super majorities of Republicans, or Democrats, of Independents who all say, throw the bums out and we ought to listen.

(APPLAUSE)

LEVIN: Now, it takes time to get these sorts of things passed, because you've got to develop support among the American people and so forth. So, what should the people in this room and across the country do? Because obviously you have an entrenched ruling class, and they're not going to say yeah, let me vote myself out.

So, what do we do? We put pressure on them? How should we handle this?

CRUZ: Look, hold us accountable. There is an incredible power the men and women in this room, the men and women of CPAC, the grassroots have the ability to get people's attention, to hold our elected officials accountable -- hold every one of us accountable.

The message that I am conveying to President Trump, to the Cabinet, to leaders in both Houses is real simple. Let's do what we promised. Let's deliver on the promises and if we do that, we'll win at the ballot box and if we don't, the people will hold us accountable for that too.

LEVIN: Let me ask you about the courts. We saw what the 9th Circuit did, or a panel of the 9th circuit on an executive order, that once the executive order was modified, really it was even a controversial executive order from a constitutional point of view, and then you have three judges who did what they did. The other day we had the 4th Circuit basically tear the guts out of the Second Amendment...

CRUZ: Yup.

LEVIN: ... reject the Heller decision in the Supreme Court. So the Gorsuch nomination's important. How do we get our hands around all this?

CRUZ: Well, you're right. You look at judicial activism, and those are two great examples, the 9th Circuit and the 4th Circuit decision in recent weeks. If you look at the 9th Circuit, it's based in California, its long been the most liberal Court of Appeals in the country.

If you look at the decision of the 9th Circuit and the decision of the California District Court -- actually the Washington District Court that struck down, that enjoined the president's order, both decisions are utterly lawless. You know, the reason the Constitution gives judges life tenure is so they can be independent of political pressures and follow the law.

I've read the District Court decision, I've read the Court of Appeals decision, they don't even cite the controlling federal law. By statute, Congress has given the president the authority to suspend immigration -- any class of immigration if he deems it in the national interest. Now, any judge that was actually being a judge would begin with a statue, would look to the precedence, would interpret it -- they don't even mention the statute. They just say, we don't like this policy and there engaged in legislation. You take the 4th Circuit decision, upholding Maryland's laws on so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines. The 4th Circuit used to the most conservative court in the country. I started my career as a law clerk of the 4th Circuit, and it was 20 years ago, the 4th Circuit was tremendous -- it was dedicated to protecting our constitutional rights.

The 4th Circuit now, they invented this new test for the Second Amendment, and here's what their test said. "The Second Amendment doesn't protect a weapon if it would be useful in a military context."

(LAUGHTER)

This test isn't just sort of questionable, it isn't just a little bit out there, it is nuts.

(APPLAUSE)

The Second Amendment was designed explicitly to protect weapons that would be useful in a military context.

(APPLAUSE)

If we were living back in 1789, your musket would be really useful in a military conflict. If you were called up to service, they said bring your musket. And indeed, the First Congress passed a law. You want to know the first gun control law in America? First Congress passed a law mandating that all able-bodied men must own a musket.

(APPLAUSE)

Under the...

LEVIN: That's an individual mandate we can live with.

CRUZ: There you go.

That's -- under the 4th Circuit's test, they say well gosh, if it would be useful in a military context. In the Second Amendment, it's not about hunting, it's not about target shooting, it's about protecting your home and your family and your life.

(APPLAUSE)

So under the 4th Circuit's test, the only things that are protected are things that are not useful in a military context. So apparently, the Second Amendment protects feather dusters.

(LAUGHTER)

You have a right to have a feather duster. If anyone breaks in, you can make sure they're really clean as they're robbing your house.

(LAUGHTER)

This is lawless. And it's why after eight years of Obama, there are few, if anything, more important than putting principled constitutionalists on the Supreme Court. The Gorsuch nomination is important. It matters. And mark my words, Judge Gorsuch will be confirmed.

(APPLAUSE)

Let's -- let's talk about separation of powers. We have this massive administrative state, this fourth branch of government within the executive branch. The executive branch does more legislating than the legislative branch. And they're pushing out 3,000, 4,000 laws, regulations every year.

Isn't there a law that Congress passed itself, the REINS Act, that empowers itself to do something about this? Well, that should be one of the singular priorities of this new Congress and of this new administration, is reining in the out of control regulatory state.

The REINS Act would require Congress to approve any regulation that would have an impact of greater than $100 million on the economy. Now, you want to talk about a basic common sense step. If the federal government is going to cost $100 million or more of your jobs going away, at a minimum the people who are elected by the people ought to have to vote and say, yes, I support taking away your job; or no, I don't support taking away your job. (APPLAUSE)

And part of the regulatory state -- you know, what the framers understood was accountability. I mean, the Constitution is brilliant for accountability; for posing factions against each other, to fight amongst themselves in government, which protects our liberty. But also in ensuring that decision-making is made by those who the people can hold accountable.

The regulatory state now lets politicians wipe their hands and say, hey, it's not my fault. It just came from these bureaucrats who work for nobody and are accountable to nobody.

And I will say, one of the things that I have encouraged President Trump to do, and I'm optimistic about this, is to take on directly the regulatory state; to take it on, to fire bureaucrats.

(APPLAUSE)

And what I've encouraged President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions -- and by the way, let me just repeat that again: Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

(APPLAUSE)

I just like making Chuck Schumer twitch.

(LAUGHTER)

But what I have urged them to do is put together a sophisticated, serious legal strategy to take on the regulatory state. Now, you'll be sued. You'll end up in the Ninth Circuit. You'll end up with activist judges trying to protect the regulatory state. But if you look at executive power -- we saw eight years of Obama. And what Obama did wrong with executive power is he tried to change the law. He tried to ignore the law. And under the Constitution, Article I, all legislative authority is vested in Congress.

CRUZ: And the president doesn't have the authority to change the law or ignore the law, and that's what Obama tried to do. But under Article II, all executive power is vested in one president of the United States. The regulatory state is Congress's efforts to undermine the president's authority. And my hope is we will see a president use that constitutional authority to rein in the uncontrollable, unelected bureaucrats and to rescind regulations.

I hope we see the Waters of the United States rule rescinded.

(APPLAUSE)

And reining in the regulatory state would have a massive impact on economic freedom going forward.

(APPLAUSE)

Let me -- impeachment. Impeachment is a constitutional function. Yes, the left keeps talking about impeachment. I mean, they were talking about impeachment before the inauguration.

(LAUGHTER)

And, you know, I think impeaching Obama in January probably would have been a mistake.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

So would retroactive impeachment be unconstitutional?

(LAUGHTER)

I don't know, but it would be fun.

(LAUGHTER)

Let me ask you this question. Do the Democrats understand they need to control the House of Representatives to impeach somebody?

(LAUGHTER)

You know...

(LAUGHTER) ... the Democrats right now are living in an alternative universe.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

The week after the election, I was back at the Capitol. I was in an elevator at the Capitol with a well-known liberal Democrat, who was simply staring ahead in this complete stupor.

(LAUGHTER)

And that hasn't changed.

(LAUGHTER)

They all look like that. They are in denial. And they're angry.

I mean, you and I were talking backstage before this. The anger on the left -- I've never seen anything like it. I mean, they're right now opposing everything. Democrats in the Senate are filibustering absolutely everything. This is the longest we've been. The Cabinet is still not confirmed. This is the longest we've been since George Washington without confirming a Cabinet.

They're filibustering everything. We voted a couple of weeks ago on approving the journal. Now, Mark, I'm going to confess, I have idea what the hell that is.

(LAUGHTER)

I've never -- I voted yes. I hope yes was the right vote.

(LAUGHTER)

Approving the journal is the most mundane procedural step. It is always done by unanimous consent. I didn't know we did that until they objected to it and said, no, you've got to have a full Senate vote; everyone come down to approve the journal.

What that means if this continues, and from the left, their base -- there's a technical term for their base -- Moscow.

(LAUGHTER)

I was going a different direction, which was bat-crap crazy.

See original here:
Read Ted Cruz's Remarks on 'Bat-Crap Crazy' Liberals - TIME