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.
Per your reply to terycarl:
“Hi, I came across this website, Catholic Planet. The owner states that he is a Roman Catholic Theologian etc. He gives specific information regarding end times etc. Do you know if this is a reputable catholic site? Thank you
“Answer by Colin B. Donovan, STL on 9/7/2006:
He seems to base much on calling himself a Catholic theologian, but does not tell us the basis of that claim. “
http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=476257
THAT, “Catholic Planet,” is your source for the oath ? Seriously? Tell us about the secret Catholic handshake while you’re at it.
Guess I gotta read up now on the 2nd Amendment to learn about religious liberty, huh? Maybe since you are such an expert not only on Catholicism but on the Constitution, you could read that 2nd Amendment and tell us all about its rights granting religious liberty.
I’m going to laugh myself to sleep! Thanks for the chuckles.
That, unfortunately, may not include past Justices of the Supreme Court, since the common sense citations,
Madison explained why there are not definitions in the Constitution. If you've looked at photos of galaxies whose light can be over ten billion years old and wondered "how do we know the physical laws we use applied ten billion years ago?" If we don't assume that time is invariant, we can't interpret galaxies using the tools we have. If we don't read the Constitution applying the term definitions as understood by our framers, its original meanings are lost.
Madison explained (Mark Levin quoted him in Liberty and Tyranny, p37) that if we don't interpret the Constitution using the common language and law understood by its framers (the very language of Chief Justice Waite in Minor v Happersett), the Constitution will lose its intended meanings. Whenever I read "because it is not defined in the Constitution", I am forewarned of ignorance or misdirection almost certain to follow...
...were evidently never considered, and apparently not the earliest cases of judicial activism. It would be really useful to learn when that first dereliction of duty from a legislature occurred. It would define the birth of total incompetence and self interest of our legislative branch of government, focused only of maintaining power and self interest first and foremost, and the only constant?
Inquisitive minds might wonder when during the Republic's history did that become the rule, with never an exception?
Is this supposed to be a slap at Cruz? If so, I guess the next questions is whether or not you believe in the Constitution and think the next president should be beholding to it. Cruz is absolutely correct. The are no "Noble Cause" clauses in the Constitution and there are some aspects than may be disconcerting to those with pet issues.
Bunch of real idiots here who seem to consider the Constitution as the Left does - a living document that can be twisted to serve a personal agenda.
Ain't no "Noble Cause" clauses and some aspects can cause one distress when equally applied. Cruz states the truth about the Constitution and yo-yos find reason to slam him for not deciding that some parts of it don't matter even though they're inconvenient at times.
Surely you jest.
Weaseling again, huh?
Apparently, you lack the wherewithal to defend your argument after refutation, and are intent on demonstrating your vacuity by dodging and weaving.
It’s simple, Ed. You claim an American Muslin lacks a constitutional right to run for President because his religious law is antithetical to the Constitution, but you cannot or will not address the fact that all major religions (e.g. Catholic, Protestant, Judaism) have religious law that conflicts with the Constitution, but those religions are not constitutionally proscribed from elected office.
That’s the argument before you Ed. If you need to Google your convictions, or ping other members ostensibly as a courtesy, that’s fine. Take your time.
RE: He should have kept his mouth shut. I’m a great admirer of Senator Cruz but, for me, he just stepped in it. Bringing up Muslims at all wasn’t necessary and wasn’t smart.
Sorry, I’ll have to disagree with you here.
Cruz or Carson or Trump or any GOP candidate might not want to talk about hot button issues but the moment one gains prominence, the questions WILL BE ASKED.
It’s better to be prepared with a thoughtful, factual and wise response than to avoid the issue and run away.
These questions are not going away at all.
Why is Ted Cruz pandering to the corrupt media?
I remember 9/11, does Ted Cruz?
Wow that’s powerful!
If Americans ever arrived at the point when it could elect a KNOWN Mooslim, we are dead anyway. It doesn’t make sense to write a law to prevent it. We have a Mooslim now, and look at the destructive results. Maobama is merely a SUSPECTED Mooslim.
President George W. Bush appointed a Muslim originally from Afghanistan to represent the United States at the United Nations, Dr. Zalmay Khalilzaid.
lost our votes?
Obviously you have a frog in your pocket to qualify as “our”.
With all due respect, I dare say that there are mighty few on FR who are willing to let diogenesis speak for them.
Cruz is probably our more sane and sound hope to right all the wrongs America has suffered, who actually has a good chance of getting elected.
If you have another preferred candidate aside from yeb, please tell us the positive points for us they have.
Bush was the doofus whose weakness brought us Maobama.
Actually the Constitution did not nor does not forbid any religion. Re-read the First Amendment. No where in the Constitution does address whom, on a religious sense, can hold the office of President. That is precisely what Cruz was speaking on.
Islam itself is indeed incompatible with our Constitution and may be what Carson was speaking toward. That was not the question Cruz was asked.
Gee, I always thought running McCain and Romney brought us Maobama.
Chester A Arthur did not burn his father’s naturalization certificate which can be viewed on the Internet.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/11067180/William-Arthur-father-of-President-Chester-Arthur-Naturalization-certificate-1843-Congress
Anybody, at any time could have seen that William Arthur became a United States citizen when his son Chester was 13 years old.
Wow, amazing how ridiculous the criticisms on this thread are about his answer. What he did was accurately and deftly avoid stepping into a “gotcha” trap of the media. He’s 100% correct in his answer. The Constitution allows a Muslim to run for president. We just have to be smart enough to know better than to vote for one, and nothing in the Constitution requires us to.
He didn’t need to sabotage himself by giving the media a baseball bat with which to beat him up, as Carson has done (this lack of savvy by Carson is a reason that, while I like him, I don’t have a lot of confidence in his ability to navigate the treacherous campaign waters ahead).
Nothing in Ted’s answer suggests in the slightest that he disagrees with Carson, but Ted knows that, just as when you’re on the witness stand in a courtroom, you elaborate at your peril. This answer should win him respect, not criticism from people thinking that a cultural foodfight at this stage of the game is a good idea.
Amen!
Their inept campaign certainly contributed to the Communist’s reign.
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.