Sadly, he is correct.
Yes, he is correct; it would be unconstitutional to prohibit a muslim from being president. On the other hand, it would be stupid to elect one.
As we have found out.
I do not accept without discussion that he is. See my previous comment.
I wouldn’t even say sadly correct.
I like the fact that any or no religion can run for the presidency but I also like the fact that I can vote against them.
He is absolutely correct. The sad part is having enough people who would vote him into office. That is the part that is killing this Nation.
Even though I’m with Trump and Carson technically Ted is right.
Sadly, it’s a question Cruz didn’t have to answer. Unforced error on all of their parts.
He could have turned it back on the questioner.
“I think its the wrong question. The right question is whether Muslims believe upholding all of the Constitution is compatible with adhering to all of the tenets of Islam. In fact, that’s the right question no matter what religion you are considering in terms of who should hold the office.
A Quaker, for example, might find it very difficult reconciling total pacifism with the notion of ‘peace through strength’ Unfortunately, it’s not enough to have force. Your enemies have to be convinced there are lines they can’t cross.
Mr. Obama’s got that issue now with Mr. Putin. Obama will allow Putin to do just about anything Putin wants. God help us if Putin ever starts thinking a nuclear war with the US is winnable.
And to whom does an Atheist answer as the highest moral authority? Himself? Isn’t that as dangerous as a religion that calls for the forced conversion of any people worshiping a different god than they do?”
Reporter: “So, you ARE saying President’s should not be Muslim.”
Cruz (in a perfect world): “No, you just did. I said any religion that held forced conversion as a tenet of their faith, and you said ‘Islam’. There are likely others, but any religion that held that as a tenet and you’d have to ask whether you’d vote for that person or not.”
Reporter: “You weren’t referring specifically to Islam?”
Cruz: “No, but you seem to be. You were asking me a hypothetical, right? Hypothetically, any religion that held forced conversion as a tenet would have a tough time with the First Amendment, right? You singled out Islam. I didn’t. Have a good day.”
Cruz is correct on the Constitution, but wrong on Carson’s comment. Carson never said a Muslim should be legally barred from being president, he said he would not advocate it and gave an excellent explanation of why.
A neo-Nazi, schizophrenic, child molester is eligible to be president, but nobody in his right mind would want one to be president. The same goes for Muslims.
I am disappointed in Cruz for not backing Carson.
Yes, he is. So is Ben Carson. That wacky religion is not a good fit with our constitution. But there’s nothing in that constitution to keep one from running for president.
Cruz’ legal reasoning is, as usual, rock-solid.
Unless you are prepared to sign onboard for the 28th. Amendment (the Islam Exception to the 1st. Amendment)
Okay, then why did Cruz vote for the Corker amendment that reverses the Constitutional protection for treaties? Rush has pointed out that Obama goes around campaigning against his won policies, blaming them on the Republicans. Now the Republicans are running around campaigning against their own vote on the Corker bill.
In so far as there is no religious test allowed sure. However a Muslim can not rightly even become a citizen because their religion does not allow them to swear allegiance to the Constitution, and Ted should know this.