Posted on 09/20/2015 1:49:44 PM PDT by VinL
It would be unconstitutional to disqualify a Muslim from the presidency because of religion, Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz said Sunday.
“You know, the Constitution specifies there shall be no religious test for public office and I am a constitutionalist,” the Texas senator said during the taping of “Iowa Press” at Iowa Public Television.
Cruz was about Ben Carson’s televised statement that Islam is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution. “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that,” Carson said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.
”
Cruz also referred to the ongoing controversy raised in the media over whether Donald Trump should have corrected a man who incorrectly stated at a rally that President Obama is a Muslim and not an American. “My view, listen. The president’s faith is between him and God. What I’m going to focus on is his public policy record,” Cruz said.
One area in which Cruz did not mind excluding Muslims, however, was from the ranks of refugees from Syria seeking asylum in the United States. He said they should settle in other Middle Eastern countries, citing concerns that some of the purported refugees may actually be terrorists.
“I think the Christians are a very different circumstance because Christians are being persecuted, they are being persecuted directly for their faith and the Obama administration has abandoned Middle East Christians,” Cruz said.
Several other Republican presidential candidates weighed in on the issue of Syrian refugees Saturday during a forum in Des Moines. Mike Huckabee agreed with Cruz that the U.S. should exclude Muslim refugees but accept Christians. Rick Santorum argued that even the Christians should be assisted in the region so they can return home when the violence ends.
Following his visit at Iowa Public Television, Cruz visited with restaurant-goers at the Machine Shed Restaurant in Urbandale for more light-hearted discussions while Iowans enjoyed their morning brunch.
Unless under a penumbra being invented by the Supreme Court. They are "formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and sub-stance,"... So possibly the law is gray and penumbrous.(sic)
One response is the CAIR response. The other is the response that reflects we have a serious problem with Islamic terrorism.
I think I could make a logical case for a Muslim being constitutionally ineligible because they can’t take the oath of office without mental reservation based on their requirement to strive in this world for a caliphate. I would probably be right. A president actively engaged in building a caliphate would be committing treason. So, there is even constitutional logic based in Ben Carson’s opinion.
But, you could probably pick holes in my argument constitutionally, given your background. I don’t think the Founders were thinking about Islam when they set up anything in this Constitution. I think they were focused on a Judeo-Christian culture, and they constructed this nation based on that assumption.
Is it possible that Cruz wasn’t assuming that Ben Carson was talking constitutionally, but addressed it anyway? Understand, I would argue with Ted Cruz over my caliphate issue, and that could render any legitimate Muslim ineligible. But, even Cruz is a product of this pluralism brainwashing we’ve all undergone.
I was thinking today that the right answer to a lot of religion questions is, “We’re the majority. Live with it.”
I call them Progressives for two reasons. One, they have tried to hide from that label for nearly a hundred years. Two, it is what they are and is directly tied to communism. I do it to shine the light on the cockroaches not to honor them.
Were still not getting Vin’s answer as to how Trump started this. I am truly curious how “Trump started all of this”.
Another story. The only way to bar them is to class all of Islam as a terrorist organization. Not practical or accurate. Best approach is to reinforce the bill of rights and get judges who are willing to view Sharia law as unconstitutional. Not every Muslim is happy with Sharia.
Cruz was not right mentioning you can’t means test based on religion “Constitutionally”. Why, when that is factual? Because that is the CAIR response. It avoids the issue of Islam, it’s terroristic tendencies, and it’s destructive nature. Carson focused on that, as the central issue. He was right to do so.
Hillary started it. She planted the freak at the Trump Townhall.
Trump said nothing and all hell broke loose.
They still haven’t found that guy. He is probably hidden in that bathroom with the Clinton server eating KFC until the stink blows over.
Somehow he is blamed. LOL
I can choose not to vote for someone because they are Islamic, and believe me, I would, but can they not run for office because of it? Nope.
Can we change the Constitution to declare Islam an enemy to Freedom and make it where they can not run for the Presidency? Yes, and I would be 100% for it.
Like I said earlier.... I have ZERO interest in your homosexual agenda.
In all honesty would a Catholic, black (except the current one), Jew or woman have a belief system that wants to destroy our republic? Islam is our enemy.
Catholics don’t follow Sharia law, last I looked.
**************
Nope, Roman Catholics own their obedience to the Pope, as the direct descendant of Christ..
Yeah, I'm waiting on a link from another poster that Trump said he loves muzzies....(...Jeopardy tune....)
I don’t want Carson in second place, but you don’t make the other guy look bad by disagreeing with him when he’s right, and it’s important his point is supported.
Further, you don’t give the CAIR response when it’s the issue of the problematic nature of Islam as it relates to the presidency.
Stay focused on the problematic nature of Islam, and that we should not be voting in Islamic adherents for president.
That is very important, especially now when many of us believe we have an Islamic adherent in the White House.
Why couldn’t he swear an oath? Kennedy sworn an oath, and under Catholicism, Kennedy’s obedience is to the Pope.
You knowledge of the background for the word may be miles ahead of mine, and your point may be sound as can be. The problem (as I see it) is that the general public will see no further than the positive aspects of the word “Progressive”. “Oh, they’re progressive. Wow, I like that...”
1. We can’t deny elected office to Islamic adherents by law.
2. We shouldn’t be voting in any Islamic adherents.
What was the important message the public should hear.
2.
Correct. The Constitution prohibits a religious test for office.
That doesn’t mean we should vote for one.
Our Forefathers never thought in their wildest dreams America would elect a Muslim to ANY office, let alone POTUS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.