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 ...
Just like Keith Ellison did. He is the only serving Muslim in Congress.
It is unconstitutional to legally bar Muslims from office. It is totally constitutional to not be suicidal enough to elect them to office.
This was discussed a lot when Kennedy ran for President, because he was Catholic. He was the first and I think he had some voters not liking that.
But what did that mean in the context of 1787? What was the spirit of the law?
Yes, he is. So is Ben Carson. That wacky religion is not a good fit with our constitution. But there’s nothing in that constitution to keep one from running for president.
...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
But what did that mean in 1787? What was the spirit of the law back then? In what context did they use the word "religious"?
"The Constitution is not a suicide pact" is a phrase in American political and legal discourse. The phrase expresses the belief that constitutional restrictions on governmental power must be balanced against the need for survival of the state and its people. It is most often attributed to Abraham Lincoln, as a response to charges that he was violating the United States Constitution by suspending habeas corpus during the American Civil War. Although the phrase echoes statements made by Lincoln, and although versions of the sentiment have been advanced at various times in American history, the precise phrase "suicide pact" was first used by Justice Robert H. Jackson in his dissenting opinion in Terminiello v. Chicago, a 1949 free speech case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The phrase also appears in the same context in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, a 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision written by Justice Arthur Goldberg.
Thomas Jefferson offered one of the earliest formulations of the sentiment, although not of the phrase. In 1803, Jefferson's ambassadors to France arranged the purchase of the Louisiana territory in conflict with Jefferson's personal belief that the Constitution did not bestow upon the federal government the right to acquire or possess foreign territory. Due to political considerations, however, Jefferson disregarded his constitutional doubts, signed the proposed treaty, and sent it to the Senate for ratification. In justifying his actions, he later wrote: "[a] strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. 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 later modified it by saying a president should be sworn in on a Bible and not a Koran.
I am disappointed in Cruz for not backing Carson.
Because Carson is wrong.
On this particular issue, in addition to the 1st Amendment protection, the reverse incorporation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment in Bolling v. Sharpe would also apply.
Yeah my mother says people had issues with Kennedy’s being president due to him being Catholic.
This protestant certainly wouldn’t have any issues with a president Antonin Scalia.
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.
It is not really open to interpretation. A person’s religion can not bar them from office, period.
However, Americans have the right to VOTE or NOT VOTE for candidates based upon their religious beliefs and no American should ever vote for a Muslim for anything.
I think the wording is quite clear. What is there to not understand?
So I guess you would “advocate a Muslim being president”?
If you think Carson was wrong on that you should move to Iran.
For the record? I am a Cruz supporter, but I think he dropped the ball on this one.
Yup! (smiling)
That was the real deal to, and a reasonable question: Would a US Catholic President start taking orders from the Pope - a man that President considers infallible when speaking ex-cathedra?
Good thing his daddy was handing out Kennedy campaign buttons: $20 bills for each vote.
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Nothing about the oath of the Office of President of the United States requires them to swear on a Bible, Koran, or even a phone book. Now, I think it would be foolish to elect a Muslim, communist, or fascist as President. But the Constitution carries a remedy for someone who breaks their oath and does not "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The problem isn't the Constitution. The problem is an electorate who would vote for a Muslim/communist (and already did), a Congress who does not impeach him, and a Court system that does not strike down his illegal and unconstitutional abuse of power.
Cruz’ legal reasoning is, as usual, rock-solid.
Unless you are prepared to sign onboard for the 28th. Amendment (the Islam Exception to the 1st. Amendment)
Okay, then why did Cruz vote for the Corker amendment that reverses the Constitutional protection for treaties? Rush has pointed out that Obama goes around campaigning against his won policies, blaming them on the Republicans. Now the Republicans are running around campaigning against their own vote on the Corker bill.
Oops; sorry; bad typo. The proper cite is Article II, Section 8.
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.