Ted Cruz: Excluding Muslims from Presidency is Unconstitutional

Freedom Outpost ^ | 9-22-15 | Timothy Brown

[DungeonMaster]

If a muslim ran for president he’d keep the whole muslim thing a secret. He’d probably go to a controversial pseudo Christian church. He’d get support from radicals and he’d have a lame resume like a community organizer. You wouldn’t be able to trust anything he said but his policies would quietly do damage to every aspect of the country.

[SoFloFreeper]

I fully understand what you’re saying...Cruz does give the proper answer.

Ann Coulter’s approach in the last GOP debate was the right one, though: this really, truly, isn’t an issue. The issue was “created” by F. Chuck Todd in that Q&A with Carson. F. Chuck Todd created that issue using the Trump town hall “question” as a catalyst.

The media tried to turn the REAL issue of Islamic terrorists to “Muslims can be our friends, can’t they?”

Carson never EVER said a Muslim can’t run for President. Ever. He said he didn’t think we OUGHT to put a Muslim in the White House. This is the kind of free thinking tolerance EMBRACED by the left for years. Does this sound familiar: “I am Catholic and believe life begins at conception. But I would never force MY point of view on anyone else.”

Carson’s position could be stated thusly: “I would not vote for a Muslim considering the history of Islam as a religion not friendly to freedom. But I would never force MY point of view on the nation.”

The left looooves the nuance on the abortion question, but won’t tolerate it on these other questions.

I hope this makes sense. :)

[Amendment10]

Thank you for referencing that article Mozilla. Please bear in mind that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

Regardless that Cruz is a constitutionalist, the Founding States had made the Constitution amendable as evidenced by the Constitution’s Article V. And since Dr. Carson has valid reservations, imo, about Muslims having power in the federal government, I believe that the Constitution’s prohibition of a religious test for holding an office or public trust is basically obsolete and possibly (likely?) needs an Article V remedy.

"Now, most people claim the Constitution is the "law of the land," but the reality is that the Constitution only applies to the federal government."

I don’t know where the author of the referenced article is coming from with the above statement. For example, note that the clauses of the Constitution’s Section 10 of Article I are prohibitions on state powers.

Also consider that, regardless that the Founding States had decided that the states didn’t have to respect the privileges and immunities expressly protected by the Constitution, and noting the controversial ratification of the 14th Amendment, the 14th Amendment applied all the Constitution’s privileges and immunities to the states.

Regarding the 14th Amendment, I had argued in a related thread that the 14th Amendment applied the Constitutition’s prohibition of a religious test to the states in connection with Kim Davis. However, I may have to “eat crow” on that one because the religious test prohibition is expressed as a prohibition of power on the federal government, the congressional recording showing that John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, had clarified that the 14th Amendment took away no state’s rights. Unfortunately, the line of demarcation between what the 14th Amendment does and does not apply to the states is not necessarily clearly defined for all issues.