Ben Carson | The William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism

Leona's bumper sticker. — “Coexist” bumper sticker. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Religious belief as a qualification or disqualification for the presidency of the United States is an old can of worms. Dr. Ben Carson, a neurosurgeon running near the front of the pack for the Republican Party’s 2016 presidential nomination, cracked that can open and invited the body politic to feast on September 20 on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation,” Carson told host Chuck Todd. In a follow-up interview with The Hill, Carson elaborated: “I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country … 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.”

Public response has been swift on both sides — affirmation from segments of the GOP base, including evangelical Christians and neoconservatives, outrage from civic-minded Muslims and, oddly, some “separation of church and state” advocates. Interestingly, US Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), also seeking the nomination, pointed out that the Constitution forbids “religious tests” for public office.

Cruz is right as far as he goes. A Muslim cannot be legally forbidden to seek, or be elected to, the presidency if he or she is otherwise constitutionally qualified.

On the other hand, voters are free to impose any tests they please when considering candidates. Mitt Romney’s Mormonism gave some voters pause in 2008 and 2012. John F. Kennedy’s Roman Catholic faith was a big issue in 1960, with critics wondering if he would “take his orders from the Pope.” If Carson continues in the top tier, his own Seventh Day Adventist beliefs might come under scrutiny.

I don’t come down in the moderate center very often, but that’s where I find myself here.

Most Americans adhere to some system of religious belief. I’m one of those Americans. I don’t consider that a disqualifier for public office. What I do expect from candidates vis a vis their religious beliefs are two things:

First, if their beliefs forbid them to do the job and follow the laws relating to the job (cough … Kim Davis), they should neither seek nor accept the job.

Secondly, even if their positions on issues are informed by their faith, they should be prepared to justify those positions, using reason and logic, to persons of other faiths (or of no faith) if they expect to be elected.

Like Carson, I admit to skepticism as to whether a devout Muslim would pass these tests. Unlike Carson, I put Christian candidates to the same test and give some of them — Baptist minister Mike Huckabee, for example — a failing grade.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

“Religion and Politics and Presidential Qualifications,” by Thomas L. Knapp, OpEdNews, 09/21/15
“Religion and Politics and Presidential Qualifications,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Harlingen, Texas Valley Morning Star (paywall), 09/22/15
“Religion and Politics and Presidential Qualifications,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Ventura County, California Citizens Journal, 09/22/15
“Religion and Politics and Presidential Qualifications,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Davenport, Iowa Quad-City Times, 09/22/15
“Religion and Politics and Presidential Qualifications,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Muscatine, Iowa Journal, 09/22/15
“Religion and Politics and Presidential Qualifications,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Laughlin, Nevada Times (print edition only?), 09/23/15
“Religion and politics and presidential qualifications,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Winnsboro, South Carolina Herald Independent, 09/24/15
“Religion and public office,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Newberry, South Carolina Observer, 10/03/15

Ben Carson is the longest of long shots in the Republican Party’s 2016 presidential nomination contest. A distinguished neurosurgeon, Carson captured the hearts of many conservatives with his comments at the 2013 National Prayer Breakfast, in which he positioned himself as pretty much the exact opposite of US president Barack Obama.

We won’t see him onstage accepting his party’s nomination next summer. He’s one of those interesting combinations — political novice and snappy-answer gadfly — who just can’t compete in the money and endorsements game and usually end up finding they don’t connect very well with voters, either.

But those same difficulties also liberate him to pose tough questions and step on the third rails that more experienced politicians carefully avoid. Like this one:

Is the Supreme Court really constitutionally empowered to review laws passed by Congress, veto those laws if it deems them unconstitutional, and order the president of the United States to act accordingly?

It’s a good question, albeit one most people considered long settled. Carson brought it up on Fox News Sunday. “The laws of the land, according to our Constitution, are provided by the legislative branch. The laws of the land are not provided by the judiciary branch …. We need to get into a discussion of this because it has changed from the original intent. It is an open question.”

The Court first set aside a law as unconstitutional in 1794. In 1804 Chief Justice John Marshall formalized that power in Marbury v. Madison.

Ever since, with few exceptions (Andrew Jackson ignored the Court’s ruling against forcibly moving the Cherokee; Abraham Lincoln ignored Chief Justice Taney’s Civil War ruling that only Congress could suspend habeas corpus), presidents have generally acknowledged the Court’s authority.

I’ve heard reasonable arguments that the framers intended to empower the Court to review statutes for constitutionality, and that they didn’t. It’s worth considering the plain text of Article III of the Constitution, which empowers the court over “all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution.”

Since the Constitution declares itself “the supreme Law of the Land,” it seems to me that the justices can’t avoid weighing subordinate laws in light of that “supreme law” and setting aside those which violate it. If they’re not, per Article III, empowered to do exactly that, what’s the purpose of an independent judiciary?

While the Constitution does not itself mention “checks and balances,” the framers did. They set the Supreme Court on an equal level with Congress and the presidency for a reason. The three branches restrain each other. Not always and never perfectly, but the Court has on many occasions proven itself a worthy last resort in defense of our liberties.

When it comes to restraining government, I’d much rather see the power of the imperial presidency curtailed. Hearing him pose this question makes me glad that Carson, who seems to style himself a George W. Bush style “decider,” will never have the opportunity to test his theory of the Court’s role.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

“Can the President Ignore the Supreme Court?” by Thomas L. Knapp, Ventura County, California Citizens Journal, 05/11/15
“Does the Supreme Court override the President?” by Thomas L. Knapp, Libby, Montana Western News, 05/12/15
“Can the president ignore the Supreme Court?” by Thomas L. Knapp, Muscatine, Iowa Journal, 05/12/15
“Can the president ignore the Supreme Court?” by Thomas L. Knapp, Bayou Buzz [Louisiana], 05/12/15