Making Sense of the Issue of the Day - RBG

a reply to: DBCowboy
a reply to: TheRedneck

but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Yeah. I read it the first time you posted it.

In other words, State laws that require their public officials to be Christians, not Jews or Muslims, for example, are unconstitutional and illegal. However, if you have a person, of any religion, that believes that the practice of their religion falls above their duties to treat everyone equally, and forbids them to enforce laws or provide protection for people that you disagree with, then they are unqualified to hold that office or job. Their religion becomes a Disqualifier.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: DBCowboy
a reply to: TheRedneck

but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Yeah. I read it the first time you posted it.

In other words, State laws that require their public officials to be Christians, not Jews or Muslims, for example, are unconstitutional and illegal. However, if you have a person, of any religion, that believes that the practice of their religion falls above their duties to treat everyone equally, and forbids you to enforce laws or provide protection for people that you disagree with, then they are unqualified to hold that office or job. Their religion becomes a Disqualifier.

You are confused.

It is stated very clearly.

I'd repost again, but I feel as though I'd be wasting my time.

a reply to: DBCowboy

So, you think that a potential SCOTUS Justice that say's that they will make decisions based on the Koran and Sharia Law, should not be disqualified from consideration?

What about a person who claims that their goal is make America into a theocracy? Is that person still qualified to serve on the highest court of the land, according to your "no religious test" mantra?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Have we had those people?

a reply to: ketsuko

What do you think?
Why do you think that?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

All I see in response is the “3 Monkeys”.

They absolutely refuse to see this. .

They CHOOSE not to.

a reply to: ketsuko

The only things the Justices should be looking at are, in order:

• The US Constitution.
  
• Federal US law.
  
• Precedent from previous US Supreme Court decisions.
  
• Treaties approved by the US.
  
• Founding Fathers' documentation.

Anything else is suspect at best and outright traiterous at worst.

I am coming to believe that the left are so used to making up anything and everything they can to get their way, they actually expect others to do the same. Of course, that is always possible, but it is also not always true. People of character accept reality. I have disagreed with many, many Supreme Court decisions over my life, but most of those did hold to a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution, law, and legal precedent. Therefore I could not say they were anything more than a personal disappointment that I would have to live with. The left cannot bring themselves to say that.

Look at Sookiechacha: The section of the Constitution that directly contradicts her has been posted verbatim twice! And she still is trying to claim it doesn't say what it says!

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: ketsuko

What do you think?
Why do you think that?

You're the one making wild claims. You tell me.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: DBCowboy

So, you think that a potential SCOTUS Justice that say's that they will make decisions based on the Koran and Sharia Law, should not be disqualified from consideration?

What about a person who claims that their goal is make America into a theocracy? Is that person still qualified to serve on the highest court of the land, according to your "no religious test" mantra?

It doesn't matter what I think or what you think.

The Constitution says it very clearly.

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: Sookiechacha

All I see in response is the “3 Monkeys”.

They absolutely refuse to see this. .

They CHOOSE not to.

What other things do you use to discriminate?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

In other words, State laws that require their public officials to be Christians, not Jews or Muslims, for example, are unconstitutional and illegal. However, if you have a person, of any religion, that believes that the practice of their religion falls above their duties to treat everyone equally, and forbids them to enforce laws or provide protection for people that you disagree with, then they are unqualified to hold that office or job. Their religion becomes a Disqualifier.

No.

Read it again.

Requiring a state official to be Christian is illegal. Requiring a state official to be Muslim is illegal. Requiring a state official to be Catholic is illegal. Requiring a state official to be Jewish is illegal. Requiring a state official to be Hindu is illegal. Requiring a state official to be Buddhist is illegal. Requiring a state official to be Sikh is illegal. Requiring a state official to not be Christian is illegal. Requiring a state official to not be Muslim is illegal. Requiring a state official to not be Catholic is illegal. Requiring a state official to not be Jewish is illegal. Requiring a state official to not be Hindu is illegal. Requiring a state official to not be Buddhist is illegal. Requiring a state official to not be Sikh is illegal.

Do you get it yet? Any religious test is illegal. Any. That includes tests for religion and tests against religion. Period.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Seems that people want to discriminate and are looking for justifications.

It's nice that the Constitution explains it in a way hat is simple and straightforward.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

So, you think that a potential SCOTUS Justice that say's that they will make decisions based on the Koran and Sharia Law, should not be disqualified from consideration?

Such a person should be disqualified for stupidity, not for religion. I already explained that no public official can force their religious views on the public. That is illegal. Being religious and holding office is not.

The point of holding hearings and vetting a person is to try and ensure that they will faithfully execute their duties per the Constitution. They are not to delve into a person's religious views. Those are not to be used when supporting a decision.

If any Justice ever used a religious text to support a decision, including the Bible,I would be calling for their rightful impeachment. That has not happened yet with anyone presently serving on or potentially nominated for the Supreme Court.

TheRedneck

a reply to: DBCowboy

By Any Means Necessary.

Their actions are reminiscent of countries like Myanmar or Nepal... where the law is literally what a leader says it is at that moment in time.

TheRedneck

It is the President's Constitutional power to nominate a Justice.

It is the Senate's Constitutional power to confirm.

Harry Reid (a Democrat) changed the rules of the Senate to allow for the Majority Party to run over the Minority Pary (even though we're only talking about 3 votes.) Now, Mitch McConnell (a Republican) is establishing the precedent that if a party has the White House and the Senate, anything goes.

Fair enough. Both "sides" are doing everything they can to erode our democratic Republic.

Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, Grassley, and the rest all stated unequivocally in 2016 that the Senate should not consider any appointment in an election year. They didn't mince words then. They were clear. Now, of course, in a position of power, psychopaths will psychpath. They are liars, not worthy of any respect.

IF I were to be saddened by any of this, the issue would be that so many here are basically arguing that the power to do a thing makes it right.

Should the Democrats gain the Senate and the White House, I pray you all remember that YOU supported the idea that might makes right.

The problem with endlessly justifying what one of two extremes does is that the American people are completely and irreparably divided.

There is no going back.

One of two ideologies will "win" and the other will be destroyed.

America is over, not to put too fine an edge on it.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Tell me again about how there is no religious test...

Arkansas, Article 19, Section 1:
No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.

Maryland, Article 37:
That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.

Mississippi, Article 14, Section 265:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.

North Carolina, Article 6, Section 8
The following persons shall be disqualified for office: Any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

South Carolina, Article 17, Section 4:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.

Tennessee, Article 9, Section 2:
No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.

Texas, Article 1, Section 4:
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

thehumanist.com...

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You will probably get the response that there will be no religious test requiring one Christian Denomination over another.

Requiring theism is perfectly okay. So's requiring Christianity, though I'm not sure whether they have the guts to admit that out loud yet.

It is clear from virtually every statement the Founders made on the subject that the US is not a "Christian Nation" but, we should all admit that it is for all intents and purposes. Those of us who are not Christian should stop deluding ourselves.

There is no freedom from religion. The Christians are free to act as they choose until they are removed.

Now, when it's a matter of Protestants vs. Catholics again, or when it's the Evangelicals against the Moderates, well, someone should tip their hat to Dr. Niemöller ...

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Tell me again about how there is no religious test...

OK, since DBCowboy is getting tired. It still says the same thing.

Article VI:

3: 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.

I even bolded the important part for you.

You are referencing state constitutions (which I believe are unconstitutional themselves, since the protections in the US Constitution have been deemed by the Supreme Court to apply to state governments as well; would make for an interesting court case in any event). Perhaps you should contact those legislatures and let them know their constitutions are in violation of the US Constitution? Alabama, somehow, didn't make that list; our constitution is a mess nonetheless! There's a move to re-write it, but you know how slow governments are.

We are discussing a US office. Arkansas has nothing to say about it. Maryland has nothing to say about it. Tennessee has nothing to say about it.

Federal US positions are governed by the US Constitution and Federal US law.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Gryphon66

There is no freedom from religion. The Christians are free to act as they choose until they are removed.

DING! DING! DING! We have a WINNER!

We have religious freedom from government. The non-Christians are apparently free to act as they choose until they are removed as well.

TheRedneck

Dianne Feinstein is promising a huge confirmation hearing fight. She must be bribing someone to say that Amy Coney Barrett raped him or her in the 1990s.