Posted on 09/21/2015 7:19:23 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at talkingpointsmemo.com ...
< /s>
I hadn’t thought of it that way. Likely you’re correct!
“A Foreign father prevents American citizenship according to the Naturalization act of 1790.”
No, it doesn’t say that. It prevents him from a acquiring the description “natural-born citizen”, a description that is a requirement for being president.
Are you sure you want to let that act of man define “natural” citizenship?
That particular act was written three years after the Constitution was written, using language in the Constitution that was current then. It has been replaced, but its value in the fact that it defines what the founders meant by “natural born citizen”, a term the experts claim to not know what it means.
The writers of the Constitution commented on the “natural born citizen” requirement; they wanted to ensure there would be no divided loyalties of the president, as opposed to what was happening in other countries.
Every time Cruz mentions that one of the first things he “would do as President” would be to return the Churchill bust to the WH, he ain’t just whistling Dixie.
We currently live in a world where reason has been tossed in favor of feelings.
You need to go reread the Naturalization act of 1790. It most certainly does say that. I'll excerpt the salient portion for you.
And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:
The Churchill bust is in the fire place with the flag and official oval office copy of the constitution.
Yes, but the constitution explicitly references Jesus in the document. It doesn't reference Yahweh or Allah.
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 do not believe putting the intent of the law in a superior position to that of the letter of the law is a Liberal methodology. The Liberal Methodology is wringing out of the words an intention contrary to that of the people who enacted the law.
Thomas Jefferson agrees with me.
On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.
Britain was already clogged with Moslems when our early colonists left.
The Redcoats had some enlistees.
The part you cite has to be taken into the context of the fact that a person born anywhere outside of the United States of citizens of the United States will also be a citizen, and also a natural born citizen, BY RIGHT OF BIRTH. The portion you cite means that the person born of a non-citizen father has no right-of-birth status and has to go through the legalization process, not that they can never become a citizen.
As I said, the Act has been replaced, but its value now lies in the fact that it defines what the founders meant by “natural born citizen”.
According to the Naturalization act of 1790, Someone born outside our borders to a non-citizen father does not get American Citizenship.
What it tells you is that citizenship descends from the Father, just as does the family name.
As I said, the Act has been replaced, but its value now lies in the fact that it defines what the founders meant by “natural born citizen”.
It is a fallacy to assert that "natural born" means "subject to the whim of the legislature when they see fit to change it's meaning."
"Natural born" means born in accordance with the laws of nature, not the laws of man.
"Citizenship" is a consequence of the Declaration of Independence, not the US Constitution. It is not "defined" by the Declaration, it is merely recognized as a natural condition.
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.
You left off again at the end of you question.
And the more Muslims we have, the more Muslim elected officials we will have. That’s the way it works.
Absolutely the best argument for curtailing their admission to OUR country!
And you are free to keeping doing so, Don Quixote. But it doesn't make you any more correct.
It is a fallacy to assert that “natural born” means “subject to the whim of the legislature when they see fit to change it’s meaning.”
*********
“Natural born” was a legal term in that era. The whole debate is that people are trying ignore its meaning as stated in our founding document. Our Bill of Rights was initially subject to the “whim” of the legislature.
******
“Natural born” means born in accordance with the laws of nature, not the laws of man.”
The 1790 Naturalization Act begs to differ; that is why it never references the laws of nature. All births are in accordance with the laws of nature. Birth has nothing inherently to do with citizenship of the United States.
*****
“Citizenship” is a consequence of the Declaration of Independence, not the US Constitution. It is not “defined” by the Declaration, it is merely recognized as a natural condition.”
That is complete nonsense. The Declaration lays the groundwork for separation from England; citizenship as you mean it, is not addressed.
We are losing the argument. We are bringing more and more Muslims into the country. And they are having more children than the average American. Their numbers will continue to grow faster than the population at large. And under our kinship immigration system, i.e., chain migration, they will be able to sponsor their relatives to join them. They will accrete more and more political power.
I didn't say I was correct. I only said that the current interpretation is not necessarily true. The history of our nation of which I am aware indicates that the purpose of the prohibition against a religious test for office was to smooth over disputes in a coalition of states with differing state religions.
It is reasonable to believe that the clause was no more intended to apply to Muslims than the Declaration of Independence was intended to apply to slaves, despite what appears to be clear words to the contrary.
It appears to me that the burden of proof should be on those people who want to claim that a document which specifically mentions Jesus, can claim that the religious test clause was actually meant to allow Muslims to serve.
In any case, the future continuation of the nation will require that this interpretation, whether true or false, be rejected.
The principles of the United States are incompatible with Islam. They cannot coexist because they are opposite and contradictory. Either one or the other must win.
The Founding document references the laws of nature. All inferior and subsequent legal acts, (of which the US Constitution is one) are a consequence of the authority granted through the Declaration of Independence, and consistent with the "laws of nature and of nature's God."
All births are in accordance with the laws of nature. Birth has nothing inherently to do with citizenship of the United States.
You need to look up the roots of the words "Nature", "Nation", "Native", and "Nativity."
The meanings are intrinsically linked. Yes, "nations" and "nature" most certainly do have something to do with Citizenship. They are inseparable.
ALL MUSLIMS whether moderate or extreme seek to impose Sharia Law.
In regard to your statement:
Morning Joe was in its holier than thou unctuous mode decrying Ben Carson for his anti-religiosity; after all the Constitution says nothing about religious qualifications for office holders.
Then the very next story had Joe and Mika appalled at the report of U.S. soldiers admonished for trying to prevent molestation of Afghan boys by Afghan soldiers.
Naturally, the liberal scribes on the show were oblivious to the connecting dots . . . that being young boys running around the White House from the Muslim perp president. You elect a Muslim . . . You bring in the culture.
Then again the blue dress wasn’t a problem for them either.
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.