Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 09/24/2015 6:43:18 PM PDT by Mozilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-52 next last
To: Mozilla

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.


2 posted on 09/24/2015 6:45:35 PM PDT by willyd (I for one welcome our NSA overlords)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mozilla

Maybe not constitutional. But definitely suicidal. Look at what our current muslim potus has wrought in America.


3 posted on 09/24/2015 6:46:24 PM PDT by LouAvul (Freedom without responsibility is anarchy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mozilla

He really needs to let this subject drop.


4 posted on 09/24/2015 6:46:49 PM PDT by Wyrd bið ful aræd (Exsurge, Domine, et judica causam tuam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mozilla
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.

The writer is an ignorant piece of garbage.
5 posted on 09/24/2015 6:46:58 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mozilla

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on to “fundamentally transform” the U.S. Government into a government ruled by Sharia law, the Constitution would be no longer valid and everything becomes fair game.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.


6 posted on 09/24/2015 6:49:31 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Don't you wish the government would treat us the way it treats illegal alien "refugee" invaders?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mozilla

Common sense is out the door.

We have seen disasterous results of socialists in office, and a muslim in office now.


7 posted on 09/24/2015 6:49:37 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mozilla

Yes, and NO ONE HAS SUGGESTED OTHERWISE!

So why do conservative Republicans TAKE THIS BAIT?!


9 posted on 09/24/2015 6:49:55 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mozilla

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.


12 posted on 09/24/2015 6:50:27 PM PDT by I want the USA back (Media: completely irresponsible. Complicit in the destruction of this country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mozilla

The oath of office excludes them.


13 posted on 09/24/2015 6:50:31 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Is the Pope Catholic?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mozilla

Sharia Law is NOT compatible with oir Constitution!!!!!


16 posted on 09/24/2015 6:56:01 PM PDT by RushIsMyTeddyBear (I'm fed up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mozilla
Prior to the adoption of the Constitution, all the states were instructed to write a State Constitution and all preceded the Federal Constitution.

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.

18 posted on 09/24/2015 6:59:41 PM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mozilla

It wouldn’t need to be a religious test, it’s an organization espousing destruction of the constitution and violent altering of government...


20 posted on 09/24/2015 6:59:55 PM PDT by Axenolith (Government blows, and that which governs least, blows least...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mozilla

All I can think of are the things libs have said about Kim Davis.


21 posted on 09/24/2015 7:00:58 PM PDT by Fhios (Racial balkanization is just the .....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mozilla

Cruz is correct about the Muslim religious question, but don’t you have to be an actual ‘American’ to be President ?


23 posted on 09/24/2015 7:01:25 PM PDT by UCANSEE2 (Lost my tagline on Flight MH370. Sorry for the inconvenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mozilla
How does one separate their faith (what they believe) from their public policy? How exactly does that work Mr. Cruz?

One can focus on the public policy record, and that will do just fine.

That record will reflect the faith or lack thereof of the person involved.

Look at Obama's record, for instance.

Cruz' artful answer just showed how a person supporting Sharia, for instance, could be excluded by virtue of their support for Sharia as a matter of policy, without bringing their religious beliefs into the mix.

25 posted on 09/24/2015 7:01:47 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mozilla

gee we might have to count on the COMMON SENSE of the American voter to exclude a Mohammadem from the office of President

we might even have to count on the COMMON SENSE of the American voter to exclude a Mohammadem from the office .... that Openly Proudly Islamic Keith Ellison currently holds....

The Founders were counting on a populace unafraid to use the brain that God gave them


27 posted on 09/24/2015 7:02:59 PM PDT by MeshugeMikey ("Never, Never, Never, Give Up," Winston Churchill ><>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mozilla
There's no religious test required to run for office.

And, there's nothing there that says that I have to vote for a muslim either. If they don't like it, tough shit.

If muslims have a problem with that, I would say move to country that is more accommodating to them, like somewhere in europe.

28 posted on 09/24/2015 7:04:56 PM PDT by factoryrat (We are the producers, the creators. Grow it, mine it, build it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mozilla
Ted is correct as far as he went.

But the President takes the following oath:

Oath of Office for President of the United States

US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

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.”

Is it possible for a Muslim to take that oath and defend the Constitution of the US? This is the issue.

29 posted on 09/24/2015 7:05:48 PM PDT by Texas Fossil (Texas is not where you were born, but a Free State of Heart, Mind & Attitude!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mozilla

If the founding fathers were devout Christians, establishing a nation on Christian principles and values, I would expect they never dreamed of the day that a muslim would occupy the highest office in the land. Or any other office, for that matter.

I don’t see how a devout muslim could love The Great Satan.


33 posted on 09/24/2015 7:09:46 PM PDT by JudyinCanada
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mozilla
claims that it is unconstitutional to exclude a Muslim from the presidency

He is right.

What so many in this discussion (not here, but in general) are confusing is a basic understanding of the Constitution:

The Constitution limits what the government can do, not what 'We the people can do'.

Yes, yes, that is a simplistic, yet idealistic version.

36 posted on 09/24/2015 7:13:16 PM PDT by Michael.SF. (This tagline lists all of Hilary's accomplishments............................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-52 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson