Because he believes that the United States Constitution allow states to prohibit, even criminalize, sexual self-pleasure. Money quote from David Corn’s article in Mother Jones; according to Cruz:
There is no substantive-due-process right to stimulate one’s genitals for non-medical purposes unrelated to procreation or outside of an interpersonal relationship.
UPDATE: To be fair, Cruz said this in the context of a legal brief he wrote while defending the State of Texas in a lawsuit challenging a state ban on sex toys. Lawyers often make arguments that they do not personally accept. That is part of being a zealous advocate for a client. But until I hear Ted Cruz disavow this argument, I shall assume he agrees with it.
Further to my previous posts on whether Ted Cruz is constitutionally eligible to serve as president, check out this interesting post at The Originalism Blog. (I must admit that posting about this issue gives me the heebie jeebies because it smacks of the foolish “birtherism” movement against Obama. However, Cruz says the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted according to its “original meaning,” and there is a non-frivolous argument that he is not qualified when the constitution is interpreted in that manner.)
UPDATE: March 28, 2016: An excellent new post on why Ted Cruz is not eligible.
Renowned constitutional law professors Laurence Tribe (Harvard) and Jack Balkin (Yale) held a cordial and informative debate at Harvard Law School last week on the question of whether Ted Cruz is “natural born citizen” and thus constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President of the United States. (See my previous post on the subject.) Bottom line: For fan’s of originalism, the legal question is not “settled” and there is a reasonable argument that he is not qualified. (As I am not an originalist, I don’t share that position. But since Ted Cruz likes to say that he believes in interpreting the constitution according to its original meaning, it is fair to ask whether he is qualified to be president if the constitution is interpreted the way he thinks it should be interpreted. Or, as Professor Tribe suggests, is Cruz just a “fair weather originalist?”)
The current debate over whether presidential candidate Ted Cruz is constitutionally eligible to hold the office to which he aspires demonstrates why arguments about how the federal constitution should be interpreted are so important. They are not mere semantic debates.
Article II § 1 cl. 5, of the United States Constitution sets forth three requirements for holding the office of President: He or she must be 35 years old, must have lived in the U.S. for 14 years, and must be “a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution.” The last requirement is at the core of the Ted Cruz debate and this post.
Not if one interprets the U.S. Constitution the way Cruz thinks it should be interpreted. See this interesting post over at the Volokh Conspiracy.
The following editorial appeared in the Connecticut Law Tribune. It is republished here with the permission of the Trib.
* * *
Prosecutors Shouldn’t Be Hiding Crime’s Records
December 17, 2013
Danbury prosecutor Stephen Sedensky and Michelle Cruz, a former prosecutor and State Victim Advocate, have recently been talking up the need to protect Newtown survivors from sights or sounds that bring back the events of that horrifying day. Read the rest of this entry »