Posted on 09/24/2015 6:43:18 PM PDT by Mozilla
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."
However, is Cruz right in his assertion of Article VI?
Article VI reads:
"…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
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. It is the boundaries of the authority that States delegated to their creature to do limited things. For the limits impose on each of the three branches, read here (Congress), here (Executive) and here (Federal Courts).
What the states wanted to do was eliminate any infringement by the federal government against the First Amendment, which applies to Christians, not just any religion.
So, can the people of the united States discriminate against Muslims as representatives? Absolutely, and yes, it's constitutional. Why? Because Article VI applies to the federal government, not to the people and not to the states. This is exactly why I pointed out that Mitt Romney's Mormon belief system has ramifications for public policy. It's exactly why I have pointed out that Muslim theology has ramifications for public policy as well.
Can the federal government itself discriminate? No, and frankly, I believe that is a tremendous flaw in the system.
But for Cruz, he claims that a person's faith is just between them and God. In responding to the current phase of rhetoric surrounding Donald Trump and a citizen's claim that Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim, Cruz said, "My view, listen. The president's faith is between him and God. What I'm going to focus on is his public policy record."
How does one separate their faith (what they believe) from their public policy? How exactly does that work Mr. Cruz?
He went on to speak about the Muslim invading "refugees" and said that Muslims should resettle in Middle Eastern countries, but that Christians were a different story.
"I think the Christians are a very different circumstance because Christians are being persecuted, they are being persecuted directly for their faith and the Obama administration has abandoned Middle East Christians," Cruz said.
But why Mr. Cruz? If a person's faith is just "between them and God," why do you oppose Muslims settling in the US, but welcome Christians? It's because he is not being honest about Article VI and not being honest about what true faith is.
And this is a serious problem when you consider that Jesus Christ taught and lived His life in public! When the scribes, Pharisees and temple guards came to arrest Him, notice what He said:
Then Jesus said unto the chief priests, and captains of the temple, and the elders, which were come to him, Be ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and staves? When I was daily with you in the temple, ye stretched forth no hands against me –Luke 22:52-53
The apostle John records the words shortly thereafter from Jesus to the high priest:
I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing. Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said. –John 18:20-21
Men like Ted Cruz are attempting to somehow compartmentalize what a person believes versus what they do and you can't do that. Jesus was open about what He believed, how He lived, and what He taught.
Christ sets the tone for all of His followers too. In fact, the apostle Paul wrote that people recognize we are His. How? It's because of how we live our lives.
Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men. -2 Corinthians 3:2
So, neither Scripture nor Article VI would keep the people from discriminating against a Muslim from the office of president. In fact, when the States were first formed, their own constitutions determined that only Christians would hold office and it required a simple test oath. Just take a look at Delaware's requirement for those who held office:
"Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust…shall…make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit: 'I ______ do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed forevermore; I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be given by divine inspiration."
Or what of Pennsylvania's constitutional requirement for someone to hold office, which was penned by none other than Benjamin Franklin:
"And each member [of the legislature], before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz: 'I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governour of the universe, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked, and I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine Inspiration."
America's original founding father encouraged the same thing I have encouraged; and that is that Christians should be electing true Christians, whose lives and doctrine are known openly.
It seems that when it comes to Article VI, Ted Cruz is being about as forthright as he is about the Constitution's requirement that those who seek the office of the presidency be a natural born citizen. Sorry Cruz, you are just wrong on both accounts. And before someone claims this is a hit piece, let me just remind you that what this is we refer to as "vetting" a candidate. I wish conservatives, patriots and Christians understood the difference.
They all miss the point... anyone can run for president that fits the criteria... voting for that person is a different matter... they should say that a Muslim could run... I just wouldn’t vote for them.
Maybe not constitutional. But definitely suicidal. Look at what our current muslim potus has wrought in America.
He really needs to let this subject drop.
If a Muzzie did run and got elected, and then went on to “fundamentally transform” the U.S. Government into a government ruled by Sharia law, the Constitution would be no longer valid and everything becomes fair game. The contract between the People and the government would have been broken.
Common sense is out the door.
We have seen disasterous results of socialists in office, and a muslim in office now.
Exactly.
It took almost 200 years before the first and only Catholic was elected to the presidency but there was never a restriction against them running.
Yes, and NO ONE HAS SUGGESTED OTHERWISE!
So why do conservative Republicans TAKE THIS BAIT?!
He needs to or the author needs too? I belive his comments were made days ago. Cruz didn’t write or post the article....
I can’t be constitutional to make a muslim president because muslims believe in sharia law which does not allow religious freedom. It is a contradiction in terms.
What an a$$whole. Their ideology is unconstitutional. They cannot hold office because they are for a theocracy (the establishment of a religion) which forbids others to practice their religion, and that’s unconstitutional.
He is truly an idiot.
The oath of office excludes them.
The U.S. Constitution is based upon English Common Law, and its provisions are incomprehensible except with reference to the common law in effect at the time.
Anyone whose faith required adherence to a body of law anathema to common law (e.g. Sharia Law) would incapable of taking the required oath and therefore would be constitutionally unfitted to be President.
Why would you vote for someone who wants to fundamentally transform the greatest country ever.
Sharia Law is NOT compatible with oir Constitution!!!!!
Our.
They contained "generally" many of the rights found in what we know as the Federal Bill of Rights.
But there were more states to come...and so the Federal Government chose the best of the best and that became the Federal Bill of Rights.
Actually, they were added well after the Constitution was approved and were a stipulation of that original approval.
I believe a site called Avalon has all those individual Constitutions...on the web.
A Muslim can run for president and win. So the proper answer is, "Yes a Muslim can run and win, but whether I support him or not depends on his policies." Period. Nothing more and nothing less. This isn't that hard to do.
Now, I realize the press is in hyper gotcha mode if you are a republican, but they should know that and be prepared. Life is not fair and republicans have to be on their feet 24/7. If you are a democrat, answers don't matter at all.
It wouldn’t need to be a religious test, it’s an organization espousing destruction of the constitution and violent altering of government...
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.