Ted Cruz: Excluding Muslims from Presidency is Unconstitutional

[240 is Back]

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), in responding to the comments concerning Ben Carson with regards to him not supporting a Muslim for president, claims that it is unconstitutional to exclude a Muslim from the presidency.

"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.

Specifically, Cruz was responding to Carson's statement on NBC's "Meet the Press," where he said, "I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that."

[headhuntersix]

Which is true...however and Cruz knows this...a muslim as president, a practicing muslim, would find his beliefs incapatable with the Presidency.

[avxo]

Ted Cruz is right, however that doesn't mean that voters can't have their own test: "is the candidate Muslim?" and vote against anyone who is. That wouldn't be unconstitutional.

I'm unsure what is inherently incompatible between being a Muslim and being the President. Perhaps headhuntersix could enlighten me?

[headhuntersix]

Unless you're some wack job suffi..(spelling) muslim..whether you are a shiite or sunni your first obligation is not to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

From a recent article on Realclearpolitics.

Islam means "submission." And a believing, practicing, devout Muslim believes in submission to the teachings of the Prophet.
 
That means not only following the dietary laws and fasting during Ramadan, but adhering to the tenets of Islam on the modesty of dress in women, praying five times a day to Mecca, and treating false faiths like Christianity as the great heresies that they are.
 
Anyone recall a collective protest from the Islamic world when that Afghan convert to Christianity was facing an executioner's ax?
 
Islam instructs its adherents not only on how to live their lives, but also how to organize their society. Is Sharia consistent with the U.S. Constitution? Would not a Muslim presidential candidate have to reject Sharia for America, i.e, apostatize? And what is the penalty for apostasy in the Quran?
 
Would it violate the spirit of the Constitution to ask of a Muslim candidate whether he agrees with the Quran on the proper punishment for homosexuals, adulterers and thieves?


I don't trust a single one of them so it would go beyond not voting for one with me. These people..whether they be arab. persian or asian...are a danger to the West. Their religion is not  a religion of peace...its a totalitarian political system that mentions god occasionally. Imagine if they were all gone tommorrow...all we'd worry about is a shirtless selfie taking commie with delusions of czarist Russia. I can deal with that guy.

[avxo]

Unless you're some wack job suffi..(spelling) muslim..whether you are a shiite or sunni your first obligation is not to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Your "first obligation" is what you choose to make your first obligation.

From a recent article on Realclearpolitics.

From my brain...

Islam means "submission." And a believing, practicing, devout Muslim believes in submission to the teachings of the Prophet.

And "gay" means "lighthearted and carefree". And?

Does any person who believes in and practices a religion devoutly, not believe in submission to the teachings of his religion?

That means not only following the dietary laws and fasting during Ramadan, but adhering to the tenets of Islam on the modesty of dress in women, praying five times a day to Mecca, and treating false faiths like Christianity as the great heresies that they are.

I'm unconcerned with what a President chooses to eat or whether he chooses to fast - that's his own personal business. And since the President can only dictate his diet (and, maybe, that of his family) I'm not too worried I won't be able to eat bacon.

I'm unconcerned about whether a President chooses to adhere to tenets of modesty of dress in women. And since the President can only control his wardrobe (and, maybe, that of his family) I'm not too worried that my girlfriend won't be able to dress sexy.

I'm generally unconcerned with how many times the President prays and in what directions he faces while doing so. And since the President cannot force others to pray, I'm not to worried that I'll have to carry a prayer rug and a compass with me. With that said, I personally find prayer stupid and would never vote for someone who claims to be in contact with and guided by a supernatural being - I prefer not having people with mental illness in positions of power.
 

Islam instructs its adherents not only on how to live their lives, but also how to organize their society. Is Sharia consistent with the U.S. Constitution?

The President doesn't have statutory authority to reorganize society.

Would not a Muslim presidential candidate have to reject Sharia for America, i.e, apostatize? And what is the penalty for apostasy in the Quran?

See above.

 

Would it violate the spirit of the Constitution to ask of a Muslim candidate whether he agrees with the Quran on the proper punishment for homosexuals, adulterers and thieves?

Not anymore than it would violate the spirit of the Constitution to ask a Christian candidate if he believes with the Bible about the proper punishment of those who, for example, eat shrimp or covet their neighbor's ass.

I don't trust a single one of them so it would go beyond not voting for one with me.

Which is, of course, your prerogative and, in a sense, the whole point of elections: that each voter apply their own guidelines in evaluating the candidates and choosing who to cast their vote for.

So by all means: if you don't trust Muslims, don't vote for Muslims; if you don't like like gays, don't vote for gays; and if you find Negroes inferior, don't vote for Negroes. But don't complain when people start calling you a bigot or a racist. Because, when you paint with the sort of broad brush you've been painting with tonight - a brush that in this instance colors over a billion people - that is exactly what you are.

These people..whether they be arab. persian or asian...are a danger to the West. Their religion is not  a religion of peace...its a totalitarian political system that mentions god occasionally. Imagine if they were all gone tommorrow...all we'd worry about is a shirtless selfie taking commie with delusions of czarist Russia. I can deal with that guy.

Careful there champ... that "shirtless selfie taking commie with delusions" will stuff you full of Polonium and the only thing you'll be dealing with, as you lay in bed slowly dying, will be the uncontrollable emptying of your bowels.

[240 is Back]

Which is true...

Ben Carson didn't seem to think so.

[Dos Equis]

Unless you're some wack job suffi..(spelling) muslim..whether you are a shiite or sunni your first obligation is not to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

From a recent article on Realclearpolitics.

Islam means "submission." And a believing, practicing, devout Muslim believes in submission to the teachings of the Prophet.
 
That means not only following the dietary laws and fasting during Ramadan, but adhering to the tenets of Islam on the modesty of dress in women, praying five times a day to Mecca, and treating false faiths like Christianity as the great heresies that they are.
 
Anyone recall a collective protest from the Islamic world when that Afghan convert to Christianity was facing an executioner's ax?
 
Islam instructs its adherents not only on how to live their lives, but also how to organize their society. Is Sharia consistent with the U.S. Constitution? Would not a Muslim presidential candidate have to reject Sharia for America, i.e, apostatize? And what is the penalty for apostasy in the Quran?
 
Would it violate the spirit of the Constitution to ask of a Muslim candidate whether he agrees with the Quran on the proper punishment for homosexuals, adulterers and thieves?


I don't trust a single one of them so it would go beyond not voting for one with me. These people..whether they be arab. persian or asian...are a danger to the West. Their religion is not  a religion of peace...its a totalitarian political system that mentions god occasionally. Imagine if they were all gone tommorrow...all we'd worry about is a shirtless selfie taking commie with delusions of czarist Russia. I can deal with that guy.

This is the issue.  Doesn't Islam require believers to reject secular government? 

[240 is Back]

This is the issue.  Doesn't Islam require believers to reject secular government? 

this is why we bring 'democracy' to places like Iraq.

[Dos Equis]

this is why we bring 'democracy' to places like Iraq.

 

[avxo]

This is the issue.  Doesn't Islam require believers to reject secular government? 

Maybe, maybe not. The simple fact is that large number of Americans who are Muslim live otherwise mundane and completely ordinary lives. Are there Muslims who aren't like that, and want to enforce their beliefs on others? Sure. But would such a Muslim run for - and win - an election for the Office of the President of the United States?

Should we raise similar concerns for a future Jewish President? After all, in Deuteromony 13:6-10 (which is part of the Torah) does it not say to "surely kill" those who believe in other gods?

From where I stand, it's really quite simple: you don't judge someone by myths and superstitions or by grimoires written by sheep herders and pedophiles. You judge people by the content of their own character and their own positions and beliefs.

[Dos Equis]

Maybe, maybe not. The simple fact is that large number of Americans who are Muslim live otherwise mundane and completely ordinary lives. Are there Muslims who aren't like that, and want to enforce their beliefs on others? Sure. But would such a Muslim run for - and win - an election for the Office of the President of the United States?

Should we raise similar concerns for a future Jewish President? After all, in Deuteromony 13:6-10 (which is part of the Torah) does it not say to "surely kill" those who believe in other gods?

From where I stand, it's really quite simple: you don't judge someone by myths and superstitions or by grimoires written by sheep herders and pedophiles. You judge people by the content of their own character and their own positions and beliefs.

I agree with a lot of what you said.  I see several issues:

1.  Is there a religious test for public office?  The answer is clearly no.  I don't think Dr. Carson was advocating a religious test in violation of the Constitution.  Anyone, regardless of faith (or no faith) is qualified to run for office (if they meet the other qualifications).   

2.  Can voters choose to support or not a candidate based on the candidate's religious beliefs?  Of course.  I know you will not like this, but most voters want a "religious" person running for president.  That explains why Democrat presidential candidates were asked during a debate to name their favorite Bible verse.  People care.  Nothing wrong with that.   

3.  Does a religion actually require its members to reject our country's values and the Constitution itself?  The answer regarding Christianity is clearly no.  Citing some out-of-context verse doesn't establish anything.  No mainstream Christian religion in this country requires its members to reject our Constitution.  I don't think we can say that about Islam, but I'm only relying on what I've heard.  I haven't actually read it myself.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it.  I'm open to reading something that clarifies this.   

[headhuntersix]

Your "first obligation" is what you choose to make your first obligation.


From my brain...


And "gay" means "lighthearted and carefree". And?

Does any person who believes in and practices a religion devoutly, not believe in submission to the teachings of his religion?


I'm unconcerned with what a President chooses to eat or whether he chooses to fast - that's his own personal business. And since the President can only dictate his diet (and, maybe, that of his family) I'm not too worried I won't be able to eat bacon.

I'm unconcerned about whether a President chooses to adhere to tenets of modesty of dress in women. And since the President can only control his wardrobe (and, maybe, that of his family) I'm not too worried that my girlfriend won't be able to dress sexy.

I'm generally unconcerned with how many times the President prays and in what directions he faces while doing so. And since the President cannot force others to pray, I'm not to worried that I'll have to carry a prayer rug and a compass with me. With that said, I personally find prayer stupid and would never vote for someone who claims to be in contact with and guided by a supernatural being - I prefer not having people with mental illness in positions of power.
 

The President doesn't have statutory authority to reorganize society.


See above.

 
Not anymore than it would violate the spirit of the Constitution to ask a Christian candidate if he believes with the Bible about the proper punishment of those who, for example, eat shrimp or covet their neighbor's ass.


Which is, of course, your prerogative and, in a sense, the whole point of elections: that each voter apply their own guidelines in evaluating the candidates and choosing who to cast their vote for.

So by all means: if you don't trust Muslims, don't vote for Muslims; if you don't like like gays, don't vote for gays; and if you find Negroes inferior, don't vote for Negroes. But don't complain when people start calling you a bigot or a racist. Because, when you paint with the sort of broad brush you've been painting with tonight - a brush that in this instance colors over a billion people - that is exactly what you are.


Careful there champ... that "shirtless selfie taking commie with delusions" will stuff you full of Polonium and the only thing you'll be dealing with, as you lay in bed slowly dying, will be the uncontrollable emptying of your bowels.

Yeah ok...having delt with these pieces of shit for the last decade plus...they're unfit to live in the US let alone lead it.

[avxo]

I agree with a lot of what you said.  I see several issues:

1.  Is there a religious test for public office?  The answer is clearly no.  I don't think Dr. Carson was advocating a religious test in violation of the Constitution.  Anyone, regardless of faith (or no faith) is qualified to run for office (if they meet the other qualifications).   

2.  Can voters choose to support or not a candidate based on the candidate's religious beliefs?  Of course.  I know you will not like this, but most voters want a "religious" person running for president.  That explains why Democrat presidential candidates were asked during a debate to name their favorite Bible verse.  People care.  Nothing wrong with that.   

3.  Does a religion actually require its members to reject our country's values and the Constitution itself?  The answer regarding Christianity is clearly no.  Citing some out-of-context verse doesn't establish anything.  No mainstream Christian religion in this country requires its members to reject our Constitution.  I don't think we can say that about Islam, but I'm only relying on what I've heard.  I haven't actually read it myself.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it.  I'm open to reading something that clarifies this.   

I agree entirely with (1) and (2). I have no problem with voters applying the standards they wish to apply - even if those standards are: "is his god the same as my god?" Hell, voters could ask: "does the candidate have a mole on his ass?" and use to decide whether to vote for someone or not. And as to questions about the Bible, I don't mind; I've read the Bible more than once and can quote it better than most Christians, and even though I'm an atheist I have a favorite Bible verse.

As to (3) notice how you qualify your comment about Christianity with "mainstream". Well, does "mainstream" Islam require this sort of thing? I'd suggest that a great many Americans who live perfectly ordinary and mundane lives but happen to be Muslim suggest it doesn't. It's possible that I'm wrong, of course, and it's certainly true that a whole lot of people are using these beliefs to do great evil. The ultimate problem is that we perpetuate religions which are rooted in the notion that it's OK to uncritically believe and follow mystical faiths on account of some divine deity whose will is revealed through ancient grimoires and supernatural communications.

Certainly these terrorists or radical Islamists or whatever you want to call them are dangerous, and we should fight them with every tool at our disposal. But we should not just use a broad brush and brand every Muslim as terrorist scum that should not be allowed in headhuntersix's United States.

[avxo]

Yeah ok...having delt with these pieces of shit for the last decade plus...they're unfit to live in the US let alone lead it.

Just to be clear, are you referring to the subset of Muslims you've personally dealt with or all Muslims? Does their passport or nationality matter? Do you include the ones who are U.S. citizens and live perfectly ordinary and mundane lives here? I'm looking forward to your answer.

[Irongrip400]

Just to be clear, are you referring to the subset of Muslims you've personally dealt with or all Muslims? Does their passport or nationality matter? Do you include the ones who are U.S. citizens and live perfectly ordinary and mundane lives here? I'm looking forward to your answer.

No, only their religion matters.

[avxo]

No, only their religion matters.

To you, maybe. Not to the Constitution.

[Irongrip400]

To you, maybe. Not to the Constitution.

Hitler came to power with a democratic constitution in place. Anyone who thinks that documents can't be modified over time due to shifting public opinion has their head in the sand. 

[JOHN MATRIX]

Islam is completely incompatible with American ideals/way of life...im sure Cruz knows this, he gave the technical legal answer but I wish he would have backed up Carson on this because he is right.

as long as the person in question is about as actually muslim as Obama is actually Christian, it shouldn't be a problem

but realistically, hell no a follower of Islam should certainly never be elected, its common sense for anyone who isn't completely obsessed with being PC.

[Dos Equis]

I agree entirely with (1) and (2). I have no problem with voters applying the standards they wish to apply - even if those standards are: "is his god the same as my god?" Hell, voters could ask: "does the candidate have a mole on his ass?" and use to decide whether to vote for someone or not. And as to questions about the Bible, I don't mind; I've read the Bible more than once and can quote it better than most Christians, and even though I'm an atheist I have a favorite Bible verse.

As to (3) notice how you qualify your comment about Christianity with "mainstream". Well, does "mainstream" Islam require this sort of thing? I'd suggest that a great many Americans who live perfectly ordinary and mundane lives but happen to be Muslim suggest it doesn't. It's possible that I'm wrong, of course, and it's certainly true that a whole lot of people are using these beliefs to do great evil. The ultimate problem is that we perpetuate religions which are rooted in the notion that it's OK to uncritically believe and follow mystical faiths on account of some divine deity whose will is revealed through ancient grimoires and supernatural communications.

Certainly these terrorists or radical Islamists or whatever you want to call them are dangerous, and we should fight them with every tool at our disposal. But we should not just use a broad brush and brand every Muslim as terrorist scum that should not be allowed in headhuntersix's United States.

Another Bible reading atheist.  (insert Spock voice over)  Fascinating.   

The point Dr. Carson was trying to make is that mainstream Islam teaches their followers to reject secular government.  If that's true, I doubt either one of us would support a candidate who didn't confirm that he or she rejects that part of Islam. 

I haven't painted all or most Muslims as scum.  We cannot ignore that Radical Islam is a worldwide threat, and all Radical Islamists are Muslim, but that doesn't mean all Muslims are Radical Islamists.  They are not.   

[240 is Back]

mainstream Islam teaches their followers to reject secular government.     

slippery slope here.

Kim Davis, the DMV worker, rejected the rules of secular govt (in this case, the US Constitution) because her religion forbade it.  (The part about gay marriage, not about adultery, divorce and multiple marriages)

She put religion before the law, and two of the top GOP presidential candidates ran to support her for it. 

So if some person with an arab name decides to reject a few parts of the constitution because their religion says so... um?

[Dos Equis]

slippery slope here.

Kim Davis, the DMV worker, rejected the rules of secular govt (in this case, the US Constitution) because her religion forbade it.  (The part about gay marriage, not about adultery, divorce and multiple marriages)

She put religion before the law, and two of the top GOP presidential candidates ran to support her for it. 

So if some person with an arab name decides to reject a few parts of the constitution because their religion says so... um?

Kim Davis is running for president? 

You don't know what the heck you're talking about. 

[avxo]

Another Bible reading atheist.  (insert Spock voice over)  Fascinating.   

Well, I am a voracious reader. Even if I had no religious reasons to read the bible, there would still be historical reasons; I find history endlessly interesting and it's hard to argue that the Bible - whether inspired by God or Man - hasn't had a tremendous influence on our collective history.

The point Dr. Carson was trying to make is that mainstream Islam teaches their followers to reject secular government.  If that's true, I doubt either one of us would support a candidate who didn't confirm that he or she rejects that part of Islam.

I don't know what "mainstream Islam" teaches - or what that even means. All I'm saying is that there are a few million Muslims living in America and most of them seem to do just fine with secular government. Maybe their brand of Islam is mainstream, maybe it's not. I don't judge labels.

You are, however, correct that I would not support a candidate who advocates for the rejection of secular government. Unfortunately, there's way too many of those.

I haven't painted all or most Muslims as scum.  We cannot ignore that Radical Islam is a worldwide threat, and all Radical Islamists are Muslim, but that doesn't mean all Muslims are Radical Islamists.  They are not.

I didn't say that you did. For the most part, I found your post to be measured and rational.

[Dos Equis]

Well, I am a voracious reader. Even if I had no religious reasons to read the bible, there would still be historical reasons; I find history endlessly interesting and it's hard to argue that the Bible - whether inspired by God or Man - hasn't had a tremendous influence on our collective history.


I don't know what "mainstream Islam" teaches - or what that even means. All I'm saying is that there are a few million Muslims living in America and most of them seem to do just fine with secular government. Maybe their brand of Islam is mainstream, maybe it's not. I don't judge labels.

You are, however, correct that I would not support a candidate who advocates for the rejection of secular government. Unfortunately, there's way too many of those.

I didn't say that you did. For the most part, I found your post to be measured and rational.

Well we definitely have common interests when it comes to reading and history. 

By "mainstream Islam" I mean the fundamental teachings and practices found in the Koran and the typical mosque.  I'm not sure if millions of Muslims living in America are just fine with secular government.  Maybe they are.  Maybe they just tolerate it.  Maybe they have to compromise their beliefs.  Who knows?   

Regardless, it's too bad these kinds of things cannot be discussed by national leaders without them being turned into partisan sound bites. 

[240 is Back]

Kim Davis is running for president? 

You don't know what the heck you're talking about. 

no, but 2 of those running made a point to hug the criminal democrat who doesn't respect the consitution.

wait, she changes parties faster than husbands.  She's a repub now.

you dicks are out of heroes.

[JOHN MATRIX]

Islam, when practiced in reality, is completely incompatible with American way of life. if the guy in question was born to a 'muslim' family but is not a genuine, practicing muslim in any real sense, like how most 'christians' in America are not really orthodox at all in their adherence to it...then it is basically irrelevant because the guy wouldn't be a muslim in any real sense.
if the person in question is an actual, practicing muslim, there is no way he could lead the united states to anything other than ruin. for every muslim-led nation in the world there is no separation between churcha nd state-the religion IS the state and everything is governed according to Islamic guidelines. Women are 3rd class citizens, gays are imprisoned/executed, brutal violence against non-believers is generally tolerated if not encouraged, etc...yep, sounds like a perfect fit for America alright