Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Reply To Thread

Cain Follow

QuoteReply
#102 Jun 08 2011 at 7:35 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1625444348715
Sage
***
3,362 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
Debalic wrote:
That right there is a bit ambiguous. Sure, there shouldn't be any religious "law" in our government but a person's faith shouldn't be relevant. We've got Christians, Jews and whatnot; why not Muslims? Unless you're under the delusion that all Muslims are intent on infiltrating and breaking the West, though that already seems to be part of the GOP dogma.

Actually, making appointment based on religion is unconstitutional. So, yeah, there's that.
US Constitution, Article 6 wrote:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
That particular part of the Constitution is so easily circumvented that it's hardly worth discussing. Then again, you could say the same thing for the Constitution in its entirety, so it is what it is.

Edited, Jun 8th 2011 7:37pm by LeWoVoc
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#103 Jun 08 2011 at 7:36 PM Rating: Decent
gbaji
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
Debalic wrote:
That right there is a bit ambiguous. Sure, there shouldn't be any religious "law" in our government but a person's faith shouldn't be relevant. We've got Christians, Jews and whatnot; why not Muslims? Unless you're under the delusion that all Muslims are intent on infiltrating and breaking the West, though that already seems to be part of the GOP dogma.

Actually, making appointment based on religion is unconstitutional. So, yeah, there's that.
US Constitution, Article 6 wrote:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.


Not defending Cain's statement in any way at all, but that just means that they can't be disqualified from holding office or public trust based on a religious test. It's hard to apply that to someone's choices regarding appointments though. How would you do that? Require a certain mix of different religions in appointed positions? Doesn't that *also* therefore violate the constitution?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#104 Jun 08 2011 at 7:45 PM Rating: Excellent
__DEL__1657498899608
Guru
*****
12,049 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's hard to apply that to someone's choices regarding appointments though. How would you do that?
Dunno, a good start would be not electing the idiot who thinks it's a smart thing to say outloud he'll willingly discriminate based on religion.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#105 Jun 08 2011 at 7:55 PM Rating: Decent
gbaji
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's hard to apply that to someone's choices regarding appointments though. How would you do that?
Dunno, a good start would be not electing the idiot who thinks it's a smart thing to say outloud he'll willingly discriminate based on religion.


Does asking a candidate if he'd appoint someone of a particular religion count as a "religious test"?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#106 Jun 08 2011 at 7:58 PM Rating: Excellent
__DEL__1657498899608
Guru
*****
12,049 posts
gbaji wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's hard to apply that to someone's choices regarding appointments though. How would you do that?
Dunno, a good start would be not electing the idiot who thinks it's a smart thing to say outloud he'll willingly discriminate based on religion.


Does asking a candidate if he'd appoint someone of a particular religion count as a "religious test"?
Doesn't say in the Constitution. I think you should spend several dozen posts arguing we need a proper procedure in place to test this, so these issues don't come up in the future Smiley: tongue
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#107 Jun 08 2011 at 8:00 PM Rating: Good
Uglysasquatch
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
gbaji wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's hard to apply that to someone's choices regarding appointments though. How would you do that?
Dunno, a good start would be not electing the idiot who thinks it's a smart thing to say outloud he'll willingly discriminate based on religion.


Does asking a candidate if he'd appoint someone of a particular religion count as a "religious test"?
In a very loose definition of it? Certainly.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#108 Jun 08 2011 at 8:12 PM Rating: Decent
gbaji
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
gbaji wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's hard to apply that to someone's choices regarding appointments though. How would you do that?
Dunno, a good start would be not electing the idiot who thinks it's a smart thing to say outloud he'll willingly discriminate based on religion.


Does asking a candidate if he'd appoint someone of a particular religion count as a "religious test"?
In a very loose definition of it? Certainly.


Exactly. It's kind of a circular problem, isn't it?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#109 Jun 08 2011 at 8:55 PM Rating: Good
Nilatai
View User Forum
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
You could always make it illegal for a candidate to make his religious beliefs known. That'd avoid the whole religious test problem, right?
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#110 Jun 08 2011 at 8:58 PM Rating: Excellent
lolgaxe
View User Forum
+1
*******
50,767 posts
Then they'd ***** about having their religious beliefs stifled.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#111 Jun 08 2011 at 9:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Nilatai
View User Forum
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
True, but then you could say "CONSTITUTION ************** Then go get drunk having won the argument.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#112 Jun 08 2011 at 9:40 PM Rating: Excellent
__DEL__1651450735431
View User Forum
Sage
*****
10,246 posts
Nilatai wrote:
You could always make it illegal for a candidate to make his religious beliefs known. That'd avoid the whole religious test problem, right?

No, you couldn't. That would be a law with respect to an establishment of religion. Congress shall make none of those.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#113 Jun 08 2011 at 9:45 PM Rating: Good
Nilatai
View User Forum
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
So making sure candidates don't use their religion to secure votes would be illegal?


Man, sucks to be you guys. Most secular constitution in the world and you can't make sure your government really stays secular. You should be like Britain. People campaigning using their religion generally don't get far. Then again, people talking about religion at all in public usually get funny looks. Good times.

Edited, Jun 8th 2011 11:47pm by Nilatai
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#114 Jun 09 2011 at 3:58 AM Rating: Good
Uglysasquatch
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
gbaji wrote:
Exactly. It's kind of a circular problem, isn't it?
Completely. I'm glad we don't have the same difficulty interpreting our Charter of Rights.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

▲ Page top
#115REDACTED, Posted: Jun 09 2011 at 10:25 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Debo,
QuoteReply
#116 Jun 09 2011 at 10:32 AM Rating: Excellent
__DEL__1651450735431
View User Forum
Sage
*****
10,246 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Debo,

Quote:
Unless you're under the delusion that all Muslims are intent on infiltrating and breaking the West


It's not a delusion if it's really happening. It'd be nice if you could move beyond the soundbytes the liberal media have spent billions implanting in your tiny little brain.


For every Muslim you personally know that is intent on infiltrating and breaking up the West I'm sure we could find a few million that aren't.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#117 Jun 09 2011 at 12:05 PM Rating: Excellent
lolgaxe
View User Forum
+1
*******
50,767 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
Debo,
Quote:
Unless you're under the delusion that all Muslims are intent on infiltrating and breaking the West
It's not a delusion if it's really happening. It'd be nice if you could move beyond the soundbytes the liberal media have spent billions implanting in your tiny little brain.
For every Muslim you personally know that is intent on infiltrating and breaking up the West I'm sure we could find a few million that aren't.
The best part is the ones intent on infiltrating and breaking up the West usually end up blowing themselves up. We could only wish the same could be said about Jehova's Witnesses.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#118 Jun 09 2011 at 5:27 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1681085903309
View User Forum
Scholar
******
21,720 posts
It's really pretty ******* simple.

1. The constitution makes it illegal to deny or grant someone public trust or office on the basis of a religious test.
2. This guy, by his own admission, would refuse any such appointments if he knew the candidate were Islamic.

Ergo, he cannot be trusted to fulfill any oath which requires him to serve the Constitution, including PotUS.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#119 Jun 09 2011 at 5:28 PM Rating: Good
Debalic
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
varusword75 wrote:
It's not a delusion if it's really happening. It'd be nice if you could move beyond the soundbytes the liberal media have spent billions implanting in your tiny little brain.

Is this racism, xenophobia, or both?

I wonder what the Freemasons' involvement with the Muslim takeover is...
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#120 Jun 09 2011 at 5:47 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1599438059439
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
It's really pretty @#%^ing simple.

1. The constitution makes it illegal to deny or grant someone public trust or office on the basis of a religious test.
2. This guy, by his own admission, would refuse any such appointments if he knew the candidate were Islamic.

Ergo, he cannot be trusted to fulfill any oath which requires him to serve the Constitution, including PotUS.

No, the Constitution says you cannot require a religious test of candidates. That is to say, if Congress were voting to approve an appointment and someone brought up the fact that the candidate was Muslim as a reason to deny them, that would be in violation of the Constitution; or if Congress were to pass a law stating that no one of Jewish descent can hold public office, that would be in violation as well. But for a man to hold a personal bias against a given race or religion, and choose not to propose anyone in those groups as a candidate, is not illegal. Such biases cannot be codified, but it's impossible to pass (or more accurately, to enforce) a law stating "no member of Congress shall vote against an individual based on their religion", and it would be a very bad idea to pass a law stating "Congress shall always consider at least one qualified candidate from any religious group choosing to field candidates". The man's racism and knee-jerk fear-mongering is reprehensible, but it's not unconstitutional in any enforceable sense.

Edited, Jun 9th 2011 6:47pm by Majivo
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#121 Jun 09 2011 at 5:52 PM Rating: Decent
Allegory
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Not important enough to start a new thread over, but if anyone was still holding out hope for Gingrich before then he's certainly lost any chance at all now.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/09/breaking-gingrich-campaign-aides-resigns/?iref=allsearch
Quote:
Washington (CNN) – At least seven members of Newt Gingrich's senior campaign staff resigned Thursday, sources told CNN, but the Republican presidential candidate pledged he would start his campaign "anew."

In addition, one of his national campaign co-chairs defected Thursday to former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty's presidential campaign, according to a Pawlenty campaign release. Former Gov. Sonny Perdue of Gingrich's home state of Georgia moved over to the competing campaign.

The staff resignations included his campaign manager Rob Johnson and long-time Gingrich spokesman Rick Tyler. Also departing are Gingrich strategists Dave Carney and Sam Dawson. Consultants Katon Dawson, who is based in South Carolina, Craig Schoenfeld, who is based in Iowa, and Scott Rials, who is based in Georgia, have left as well as six staff members in Iowa and Perdue.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#122 Jun 09 2011 at 5:55 PM Rating: Excellent
__DEL__1657498899608
Guru
*****
12,049 posts
Allegory wrote:
if anyone was still holding out hope for Gingrich before
Giggle Smiley: tongue
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#123 Jun 09 2011 at 7:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel
View User Forum
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gingrich was always a weird run. There's about a dozen old guard GOP pundits or analysts or think tank guys who are just convinced that he'd be awesome... and that's about it. Everyone else is either sick of him or doesn't remember who he is.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#124 Jun 09 2011 at 8:21 PM Rating: Decent
gbaji
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Gingrich was always a weird run. There's about a dozen old guard GOP pundits or analysts or think tank guys who are just convinced that he'd be awesome... and that's about it. Everyone else is either sick of him or doesn't remember who he is.


Yeah. While he's useful as an idea/opinion guy, I've just never seen him as presidential material. I suppose I could theoretically see him as a VP choice though. Hard to say.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#125 Jun 09 2011 at 9:35 PM Rating: Excellent
__DEL__1657498899608
Guru
*****
12,049 posts
Good news, gays! Homosexuality is a sin AND a choice!
Quote:
“I believe homosexuality is a sin because I’m a Bible-believing Christian, I believe it’s a sin,” Cain said, adding, “I believe it is a choice.”

Yup, I subscribe to the Herman Cain newsletter. It's odd. The site I looked at seemed to want him at first... and now they just repeat his absolute worst comments over and over...
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#126 Jun 09 2011 at 9:44 PM Rating: Good
lolgaxe
View User Forum
+1
*******
50,767 posts
You sure it was a pro-Cain newsletter? Either that or actively sabotaging himself because he really doesn't want to run.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
▲ Page top
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 305 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (305)
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC