Ted Cruz: It Would Be Unconstitutional To Keep Muslim From Running For Prez

TPM ^ | 09/21/2015 | ByCAITLIN MACNEAL

[SeekAndFind]

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) did not back up his fellow Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson when asked about the retired neurosurgeon's comment that Muslims should not be president of the United States.

"You know, the Constitution specifies there shall be no religious test for public office and I am a constitutionalist," Cruz said at a Sunday taping of Iowa Public Television's "Iowa Press," according to the Des Moines Register.

Carson on Sunday morning told NBC's "Meet the Press" that he would "not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation." In an interview with The Hill later on Sunday, Carson stood by his remarks.

"I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country," he told The Hill. "Muslims feel that their religion is very much a part of your public life and what you do as a public official, and that’s inconsistent with our principles and our Constitution."

Although Cruz weighed in on Carson's comments, he would not criticize Donald Trump for failing to correct a town hall audience member who said President Obama is a Muslim.

"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 when asked about Trump's comments on "Iowa Press," according to the Des Moines Register.

[DiogenesLamp]

It is unconstitutional to legally bar Muslims from office. It is totally constitutional to not be suicidal enough to elect them to office.

I do not know that this is true. I know that liberal judges would have us believe this is true, because that is the meaning which they wish to twist from the words, but I argue that this does not meet the intent or spirit of the law.

This interpretation is just sophistry.

[zzwhale]

WE already HAVE A muzzzie IN THE wh...
HOW’S IT WORKIN OUT FOR you....
and as an added bonus he is a TRAITOR...

CAN YOU IMAGINE harry truman.... lets give half our atomic bombs to japan because they say they want them for peaceful purposes...and look spies gave the secrets to russia and that turned out well didnt it..??whe the people you are giving it to say they want to kill you...and mean it..??

HOW DOES A NUCLEAR WEAPON FIT INTO PEACE...

[C. Edmund Wright]

True, there’s no real conflict between what Carson and Cruz said, merely a difference of emphasis. I wish Cruz had led with “not a good idea” and then added “technically re the Constitution” - but I think it’s safe to say Cruz really thinks it’s a bad bad idea.

[DiogenesLamp]

Look, I know what you want it to mean but it says what it says and it meant what it said then and and it means what it says now. Period.

You are naive if you think words meant the same thing in 1787 that they mean now. Take the word "Marriage" for example. In 1787, sodomy was a capital offense, and plenty of people were executed for engaging in it.

Nowadays, sodomy is regarded as a protected right, and sodomy marriage is legally accepted.

In the context of 1787, the word "religion" meant "denomination", not "religion" in the manner in which we regard it now.

[DiogenesLamp]

It is not really open to interpretation. A person’s religion can not bar them from office, period.

So you say, but that is not necessarily the intent of the Delegates when they wrote that clause. Just as the purpose of the 14th amendment was to grant citizenship to newly freed slaves, but has been since used to justify "anchor babies" , abortion, homosexual marriage, and a whole series of other things, it is obvious that these interpretations are far outside the intent of Congress when it created the 14th amendment.

You must interpret the meaning of that clause in the frame of reference from which it originated, and in 1787 the intent was to reassure everyone that different denominations of the Christian faith would have equal access to government offices and positions.

It was never intended to apply to people outside of a denomination of the Christian faith.

Just as the Declaration of Independence uses the phrase "All men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..." was not intended to apply to slaves.

Modern people come along and say that clause prohibits slavery, when in fact it did nothing of the sort. The very man who wrote it, and most of his contemporaries continued owning slaves long after that clause was written, so therefore it does not mean that.

So too does that article in the Constitution likely not mean what people thinks it means.

[HandyDandy]

However, looking at google images, I see Lincoln's fat red Bible for 0's 1st Innaugural. But Roberts messed up so they had to redo the Oath in private. There I see 0's hand on a blue-colored book. For his 2nd Innaugural, because the date fell on a Sunday, he was sworn in privately before the public event. Then he messed up that 2nd public Innaugural and I have no idea if they ever did a redo. (They probably didn't because the public 2nd Innaugural was actually a redo.) If they did, that would mean the 0 has taken the Oath five times.

Perhaps this has been researched more thoroughly by others. I am doing a quick, shoot from the hip, on the fly "research".

[DiogenesLamp]

I think the wording is quite clear. What is there to not understand?

I think this wording is also quite clear:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-

So that means slavery was abolished in 1776 right? That's what the words say don't they? The words are quite clear. All men have equal rights.

So does history demonstrate that those words mean that? No, they demonstrate quite the opposite. They don't really mean that at all.

I'm arguing that the prohibition against religious tests doesn't mean what people think either. Just because the words are plain doesn't mean that the interpretation of them is actually correct.

[DiogenesLamp]

Do you have any idea how much of the world was under total Moslem tyranny when this country was founded?

Very much so. Thomas Jefferson was all too familiar with the problem. Do you know how many of them were over here when the country was founded?

[HandyDandy]

3. Anathema

[RIghtwardHo]

He is correct. The Constitution makes that perfectly clear.

[DiogenesLamp]

It is only a matter of time before we recognize the religious rights of Muslims to have multiple wives. The Koran allows four.

We will either toss out the principle that all religions are equal, or we will die.

If the founders believed that we must treat all religions equally, then they were flat wrong.

The only path to survival for the principles upon which the United States is founded, is to reject the notion that secularism or intolerant religions such as Islam should be tolerated.

Europe is going to die. The only thing which might possibly save it is to jettison the Christian based notion of equality, and start enforcing deliberate and confrontational discrimination against the Islamic religion.

[DiogenesLamp]

The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means."

And there it is in a nutshell. We will either jettison this interpretation of that clause, or we will die.

That clause is incompatible with a continuation of the character of the United States.

[right way right]

Are you serious, this was argued to death yesterday.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3339206/posts

The precedent that has already been set, note the date on this cover. Trump is right, Carson is right and Cruz is right.

[DiogenesLamp]

The Naturalization Act of 1790 defines “natural-born” precisely — children born of citizen parents (plural).

And it explicitly states that if a child has a foreign father, he cannot be a citizen, let alone a "natural" citizen.

A Foreign father prevents American citizenship according to the Naturalization act of 1790. Are you sure you want to let that act of man define "natural" citizenship?

[kabar]

A Muslim is free to run for office, and we are free to vote for someone (anyone) else.

And the more Muslims we have, the more Muslim elected officials we will have. That's the way it works.

Federal Data: U.S. Annually Admits Quarter Of A Million Muslim Migrants

[Above My Pay Grade]

When the wording is crystal clear, there is no need to go to original intent. Islam, Judaism and dozens of other religions existed at that time it was written.

You sound like a Liberal Activist judge who reads the Constitution the way he would like it to read rather than how it read.

I am sure the founders would not want a Muslim president, but they left that responsibility up to us and we fulfill it by not voting for the goat banging savages.

[DiogenesLamp]

This isn't exactly the model of clarity. The traditional practice would have been: "Go draft a treaty with Iran, and bring it back for us to approve it." That is the best way of conducting business. But from a strictly legal standpoint, it does not appear to preclude the directive of "We direct you to go work a Treaty with Iran" as being the "Advice and Consent of the Senate." I think the Corker bill was foolish and very bad policy. I think it was a mistake for Cruz to vote for it. But I don't think it would be found unconstitutional.

I would argue that you cannot make an open ended consent. That such a thing is beyond the power of the Senate.

Suppose we argue that you can. If so, suppose the prior approved provisions of a treaty which no one has seen include paying Iran a trillion dollars. Suppose it requires sending all the guns to Iran. Suppose it requires any sort of violation of guaranteed rights, chief among them being the right to continue living, a status to which this treaty most certainly creates a threat.

No, you can't give prior consent. It is not a reasonable position to argue. If you can't create a law after the fact, it stands to reason that you can't give permission prior to the fact.

You can't consent until the conditions for which you are consenting are known.

[SmokingJoe]

We've already had a Muslim president, Barack Hussein Obama. He still sits in the White House. So the point is moot. However, you can't stop anyone from becoming President if he won the elections to become President, based solely on the fact that he is a Muslim.

[SmokingJoe]

Pretty much.

[henkster]

I would argue the same thing, but I'm not sure it would carry the day. Remember Justice Roberts' line from NAM v. Sebilius, something to the effect of it not being the Supreme Court's job to correct bad political choices.

With the exception of Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer, ever since West Coast Hotel v. Parrish the Supreme Court has abandoned any pretense of requiring any branch of the Federal government to follow the Constitution.