Cruz: Excluding Muslims from presidency is unconstituional

Minforms ^ | 9/20/15 | Staff

[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.

[dforest]

Obviously there is a push going on right now by the media and the left to hit all of our candidates on this muzzie thing.

They are trying to get them as bigots and Unconstitutional islamophobes.

A person gives the wrong answer that CAIR and the MSM deems not good enough and all hell comes down on their heads.

So far, they have all walked the gauntlet pretty well.

[usconservative]

Just out of curiosity, I have to ask: How can one uphold and defend the Constitution and at the same time comply with Sharia law?:>

You can't, and that's a fact that the Cruz knee-pad wearers like VinL can't get their pea brains around.

[Steve_Seattle]

"I am a Cruz guy but he is incorrect here. Voters in America can discriminate based pon race, sex, religion, gender, transgender or eye color and nothing in the Constitution prevents them from doing so."

Cruz did not say that you can't vote against someone because of his/her religion. He said that there can be no LAWS prohibiting people of a certain faith from running for office. Don't you understand that there are a lot of libs who would try to ban CHRISTIANS from running for public office?

[Las Vegas Ron]

Besides, that ship has already sailed.

Indeed it has, further proving that islam and any person who practices it should not be POTUS.

islam isn't a religion anyway, it's is a political theocracy to dominate the world masquerading as one.

[txhurl]

No, it’s because the MenSeekingMen completely ignore Cruz in the debates, day-to-day coverage, actively *suppressing* him making the 24/7 cycle in order to keep his name rec in the 10s or less.

[VinL]

Why don’t you read the whole article— really-— you might change your view.

[Yardstick]

Exactly. The Congress obviously can’t pass a law keeping Muslims out of the presidency, but certainly the people can take a candidate’s religion into account when deciding who to vote for. I would even say there’s nothing unconstitutional about the candidates making their opponents’ religion a campaign issue. I don’t see anything in Carson’s comment that’s in conflict with the letter of the Constitution.

[CatherineofAragon]

LOL

Wow...just wow

[Godebert]

“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 is a Constitutionalist? If he was... he would not be running for president.

Note the reference to Natural Law in the first sentence of our Declaration of Independence.

It is crystal clear that the Founding Fathers used the Natural Law definition of 'natural born Citizen' when they wrote Article II. By invoking "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God" the 56 signers of the Declaration incorporated a legal standard of freedom into the forms of government that would follow.

President John Quincy Adams, writing in 1839, looked back at the founding period and recognized the true meaning of the Declaration's reliance on the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." He observed that the American people's "charter was the Declaration of Independence. Their rights, the natural rights of mankind. Their government, such as should be instituted by the people, under the solemn mutual pledges of perpetual union, founded on the self-evident truth's proclaimed in the Declaration."

The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

[dfwgator]

What would you have Trump say, “I would never hire a Muslim under any circumstances.”

Yes, us Freepers would cheer, but we are put a tiny percentage of the overall electorate, can’t do much good unless you actually win elections.

[Balding_Eagle]

Well bless your heart.

[VinL]

Read the entire article, if you wish to be informed.

[FreeReign]

Did Carson say anything about "disqualifying" anyone from being president because they are a Muslim? NO!

Correct.

He just doesn't think a Muslim should be elected to lead this country. If the people of America are stupid enough to elect another Muslim then we get what we deserve.

Okay.

If Cruz is thinking that a Koran Thumpting Muslim would make great President in America, then that's Strike 4.

Wait a second. You just corrected a misunderstanding about what Carson said...and then in the next sentence you mischaracterize what Cruz said. Cruz did not say that a "Koran Thumpting Muslim would make great President in America".

[CatherineofAragon]

Thanks for your blessing on this lovely Sunday. Glad I could help you understand the vast difference.

[dforest]

That is a fact that never enter the minds of some.

[Steve_Seattle]

"You can't, and that's a fact that the Cruz knee-pad wearers like VinL can't get their pea brains around."

From one pea brain to another, I CAN grasp the issue. Being a Muslim does not necessarily mean that you must try to enforce sharia on America, no more than JFK tried to enforce all the details of Catholic morality on America. And if a Muslim DID attempt to force sharia on America, it would be a one-term presidency.

[Sasparilla]

...Constitutional amendments need to be made that redefine what is a ‘religion’ and what is a ‘cult ‘ and thus not protected by 1st Amendment rights...

There already is enough problem with Courts telling us what, aside from their plain words and meanings,
Amendments mean, and coming up with exceptions to them such as with the First, Second and Fourth.

The only way to keep them out of office is by the vote, and we have already seen that a sleeper muslim has already infected the oval office.

[noinfringers2]

Not a question but a statement that Cruz has just lost what support I had for him. He needs to go back to the early days of the US when Jefferson sent warships to Tripoli to tell Muslims to stay out of/away from the newly formed US. I’m starting to think that Cruz wants the Constitution and history of the US as he sees such or at least define It to his own liking. So disappointing.

[usconservative]

Yeah, I know. You can’t get your head around that truth either.

[CatherineofAragon]

Aaaaaand here come the Cruz birthers, LOL!