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.

[Las Vegas Ron]

No- Trump created the issue, Carson inflamed it; and Cruz put it to rest.

Huh?

How did Trump create this issue, what did I miss?

[VinL]

Talking to yourself, again?

[MeshugeMikey]

Referred them to and gave a reason....

CRUZ ANSWERD “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.

HOW can anything be read into THAT ???

[right way right]

“Cruz has put it to rest”
I would have disagree slightly, the guy is building a case.
He’s alway building a case. LOL
The subject of Islam needs to be on table as much as immigration in this election.
It’s a nessesary evil. (No pun intended)

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

Excluding moslems may be unconstitutional, but if the people are dumb enough to elect a truly practicing mohhammedan, soon there will not be a Constitution to worry about.

[Steve_Seattle]

Carson was repeating the same sort of thing that was said about JFK, and many here are showing themselves to be heirs of those people.

Of course, this cuts both ways - many here would say that THEIR religious values CAN be enforced by civil law, but that the values of Muslim's can't be. So it's ok for Christians to ban abortion or gay marriage, but not for Muslims to ban pork.

In my view - banning pork or banning abortion - are both ok, IF you can get a majority to support those positions. I don't think that we need to somehow do an inventory of our moral beliefs and decide which are based on religion and which are not, or to what degree.

This is supposedly a government of the people and by the people, and the Constitution does not dictate HOW the people must arrive at their moral convictions, or declare that those convictions are illegitimate if they are perceived to be based on religious belief.

The Constitution is very open-ended about most matters, and does not protect the eating of pork or the practice of abortion, or explicitly prohibit either. These issues are rightfully left to our elected representatives, who can always be corrected if they stray too far from the public will. On the other hand, unelected judges on the Supreme Court cannot be corrected, except (hopefully) by a later Supreme Court.

[JediJones]

You people are living in an absolute fantasy world if you think someone can be kept off the ballot because of their religion or for that matter for being a communist.

Those simply aren’t part of the constitutional requirements for being eligible for president.

Because we don’t agree with someone doesn’t mean they’re ineligible to be on the ballot for president.

[right way right]

“because of religion”
Do you think Cruz is endorsing a Muslim presidency by saying that.
He’s not.

You’re practicing the same logic the media applies to Trump because he did not specifically tell a guy who stated Obama is a Muslim, that Obama is not A Muslim.

Everyone knows Obama is at the very least a Muslim sympathizer, and everyone knows that a Muslim in the White House would be a horrendous choice.

Cruz is not talking about choices, he is talking about the constitution in it’s plain language.

There is no religious restriction on the office of POTUS.

All this points to is perhaps a need to ammend the constitution and to put that restriction on the office.

Cruz is luring the snakes, and your biting.

[cripplecreek]

We’ve only had 1 Catholic president in 200 odd years since this country was founded. I was born the year after Kennedy was elected but my mother says his faith was an issue with a lot of people.

I personally couldn’t care less about whether a president is Catholic or not as long as he’s a constitutional conservative. I certainly wouldn’t have any issues with a President Antonin Scalia.

[dfwgator]

I personally couldn’t care less about whether a president is Catholic

Unless they're a Jesuit.

[CatherineofAragon]

"Alinsky don’t work on me, Missy."

So every time someone calls you on your willful ignorance, it's "Alinsky?"

[Steve_Seattle]

"Ahhh, that my FRiend is the moment you realize it is too late."

Prohibition - imposed by a constitutional amendment - did not survive the reaction of public opinion.

[jwalsh07]

Islam is inconsistent with the Constitution and Ben Carson never said there should be a religious test for office. So Cruz should have said to the reporter: “What the hell are you talking about?”

Comprende Miguel?

[JediJones]

The country is ultimately based on a 2/3rds majority rule, not on whatever the constitution says right now. If the country someday gets a 2/3rds Muslim population, the entire constitution will be repealed and replaced by the amendment process.

[ConservativeMind]

Huh? He wants his own supporters to wonder why he’s bothering to tell people that it’s not constitutional to stop Muslims from running for president? It’s also not Constitutional to stop child rape in Iran, so why didn’t he say that, as well?

[JediJones]

He “should” have said that why? What’s wrong with giving a correct, true statement as an answer?

[odawg]

“You are suggesting that Muslins can constitutionally be banned from seeking public office.”

Well, no. If the people in this country are stupid enough to vote in a Muslim, it would mean the same thing if they are stupid enough to vote in Hillary; it wouldn’t mean that either will destroy the country, it means the country is already destroyed.

Now, Cruz and the Constitution:

Cruz and all the Republican Senators except for Cotton voted for the Corker bill, the bill that upended our Constitutional protection that requires a two-thirds approval vote of the Senate for ratification. The Corker bill changed it to a two-thirds vote disapproval for it NOT to be approved.

Wasn’t that just great? And inexplicable? But lets draw a line in the sand to ALLOW a Muslim to be president.

[CatherineofAragon]

I imagine that’s exactly why Cruz responded. The Constitution is his passion, so he referred them to it-—with an explanation of what it contains.

[VinL]

See Post #199- try educating yourself- though I suspect you’re not educable.

[JediJones]

The Constitution is silent on the matter of stopping child rape in Iran. It is NOT silent on the matter that a Muslim cannot be disqualified to become president.