Don’cha love these constitutional Republicans?

Uncategorized

Cross posted from Rational Resistance.  

Here's a new guy (Republican candidate for President), pizza magnate Herman Cain.  

Like most Republicans, his reading of the Constitution is a little, well, idiosyncratic.  

  KEYES: You came under a bit of controversy this week for some of the comments made about Muslims in general. Would you be comfortable appointing a Muslim, either in your cabinet or as a federal judge?    

CAIN: No, I would not. And here’s why. There is this creeping attempt, there is this attempt to gradually ease Sharia law and the Muslim faith into our government. It does not belong in our government. This is what happened in Europe. And little by little, to try and be politically correct, they made this little change, they made this little change. And now they’ve got a social problem that they don’t know what to do with hardly.

 

Oops. I guess I spoke too soon when I talked about his reading of the Constitution, because that's obviously something he's never done. If he had, he might have noticed the Religious Test Clause.  

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.

 

Yes, sir, even though he wants the opportunity to take the oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, apparently that doesn't apply to the parts he doesn't like.  Follow the link and watch the video soon, because we have a hunch he may not be in the race too long.

12 thoughts on “Don’cha love these constitutional Republicans?”

  1. is going to be such a freak show, it’s going to make the ’08 primary look downright sane, by comparison. With Bachmann potentially in there, and hopefully Palin, it’s gonna be a wild ride seeing who can batshit out-crazy each other. Get the popcorn.

  4. Earlier this week, Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association pontificated thusly:

    The First Amendment was written by the Founders to protect the free exercise of Christianity.

    So Cain is echoing a new talking point from the far right: The First Amendment doesn’t mean what it says. It only means “Christianity,” presumably because when the FFers were around, we didn’t have Jews or Muslims or Buddhists or Baha’is in America. At least, not enough to worry about. Therefore, as far as the Constitution is concerned, “religion” means Christianity.

    Yet another example of the absurdity of originalism: You can find a basis in the Constitution — or a way to interpret something in the Constitution — to justify almost anything. (Second Amendment, anyone?)

    The Constitution is like the Bible in that way: it allows a lot of room for interpretation. Which can be a good thing, or a bad thing.  

  5. that this guy doesn’t become a serious contender for the Presidency. For that matter, the same goes for Gingrich, Bachmann, Palin(if she moves), Huckabee(if he moves) and Santorum. As a Muslim, as an American of African-Latin heritage, and as a reasonable human being, these dudes and dudettes scare the hell out of me.

Comments are closed.