US Republicans shamefully shred the constitution

[stevenl]

I just saw a number of Muslims living in America being interviewed about the question "Would you consider Shariah law above the U.S. constitution?" An alarming number of them said "Yes, the law of Allah would ALWAYS supersede ANY laws created by man."

This is a valid concern - if a Muslim became president, would he (she?) be able to put aside their religious convictions and rule objectively?

A Christian like Mike Huckabee has proven he does consider Christian law above the US constituation.

[MadBum]

What a pantload.

And since when is an opinion piece news?

[MadBum]

I just saw a number of Muslims living in America being interviewed about the question "Would you consider Shariah law above the U.S. constitution?" An alarming number of them said "Yes, the law of Allah would ALWAYS supersede ANY laws created by man."

This is a valid concern - if a Muslim became president, would he (she?) be able to put aside their religious convictions and rule objectively?

A Christian like Mike Huckabee has proven he does consider Christian law above the US constituation.

And therefore Huckabee represents all Republican viewpoints, especially so based on his polling numbers.

[Cats4ever]

"America's first European settlers left their homelands to escape religious persecution, a fact enshrined in the all-embracing constitution. It is appalling that greed for power now subsumes democracy's best-laid plans."

This is a result of the Disneyification of US history. They left England so they would have the freedom to persecute people who did not subscribe to their particular beliefs. The Salem witch trials are an example.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Cats4ever

[stevenl]

I just saw a number of Muslims living in America being interviewed about the question "Would you consider Shariah law above the U.S. constitution?" An alarming number of them said "Yes, the law of Allah would ALWAYS supersede ANY laws created by man."

This is a valid concern - if a Muslim became president, would he (she?) be able to put aside their religious convictions and rule objectively?

A Christian like Mike Huckabee has proven he does consider Christian law above the US constituation.

And therefore Huckabee represents all Republican viewpoints, especially so based on his polling numbers.

It's ok if you don't understand a post, but better not to react to it.

[MadBum]

I just saw a number of Muslims living in America being interviewed about the question "Would you consider Shariah law above the U.S. constitution?" An alarming number of them said "Yes, the law of Allah would ALWAYS supersede ANY laws created by man."

This is a valid concern - if a Muslim became president, would he (she?) be able to put aside their religious convictions and rule objectively?

A Christian like Mike Huckabee has proven he does consider Christian law above the US constituation.

And therefore Huckabee represents all Republican viewpoints, especially so based on his polling numbers.

It's ok if you don't understand a post, but better not to react to it.

Facts are that the Huckster is irrelevant.

Why bring the guy up?

And please post your proof that he would or has put faith above the Constitution.

Or does the 14thA not apply in the case of someone like Kim Davis?

Personally, I don't care but I think her case might go to the SCOTUS

[DisparateDan]

Seems that Presidents are just placeholders for the interests that get them elected. MIC, Banks, Energy Companies etc.

Edited September 24, 2015 by DisparateDan

[Asheron]

What is so controversial about saying that it's impossible to be follow both Sharia and The Constitution?

[Steely Dan]

If the U.S wishes to remain a "beacon of democracy" as mentioned in the O.P then the very first thing it should be doing is standing up to totalitarian supremacist ideologies such as Islam. Alas the current administration takes the opposite tack and takes swipes at the first amendment at the behest of Islamic pressure groups. The O.P title should be viewed as an exercise in projection.

[Credo]

I just saw a number of Muslims living in America being interviewed about the question "Would you consider Shariah law above the U.S. constitution?" An alarming number of them said "Yes, the law of Allah would ALWAYS supersede ANY laws created by man."

This is a valid concern - if a Muslim became president, would he (she?) be able to put aside their religious convictions and rule objectively?

The question is not fairly worded. A large number of Christians would say that God's laws would supersede the Constitution. The point are they willing to live under the constitution and abide by it.

That's more than a Clerk of Court in Kentucky will do....and a wannabe presidential candidate.

[SheungWan]

The Nation's editorial comments in line with conspiracy junk it occasionally foams off about.

[KarenBravo]

Nor do I.

Please explain it.

"Americaness", the American equivalent of Thainess. Largely a mystery.

A pretty crappy answer.

How would you know that the Nation doesn't understand Americaness, if you don't understand it yourself?

A pretty crappy attitude this fine morning. Apparently you don't understand a post that is meant to be lighthearted. Not everything in this world should be taken so seriously. Sorry, my fault I should've used one of them smiley icons...

You made a serious statement.

I asked you to explain.

You copped out with a throw-a-way answer.

I was disappointed and let you know it.

Maybe I should have just used one of those emoticons to let you know. You obviously understand them well.

[klauskunkel]

"Americaness", the American equivalent of Thainess. Largely a mystery.

A pretty crappy answer.

How would you know that the Nation doesn't understand Americaness, if you don't understand it yourself?

A pretty crappy attitude this fine morning. Apparently you don't understand a post that is meant to be lighthearted. Not everything in this world should be taken so seriously. Sorry, my fault I should've used one of them smiley icons...

You made a serious statement.

I asked you to explain.

You copped out with a throw-a-way answer.

I was disappointed and let you know it.

Maybe I should have just used one of those emoticons to let you know. You obviously understand them well.

You win.

I lose.

Happy now?

[arjunadawn]

And.. They are exercising their Constitutional rights to free speech. The writer apparently has no concept of the Constitution but says it is being shredded. To the contrary.

The author should stay in a country where there is no right to free speech like Thailand which would give him an attitude adjustment for talking about leaders like that.

Freedom of speech, The Nation. Freedom of speech.

There is an intellectual drivel that plagues the media and certain leftists around the world. This saliva debases anything not in their political talking points or personal agenda. Case in point: The OP reveals its cognitive disconnect within a short space. Likely a Freudian slip, the author reveals the underlying reason why storm clouds are gathering internationally regarding islamic assimilation insurgency; certainly why such topics may be a "vote-getter."

"Thailand is not unaffected, having sent troops to fight in the Middle East as part of the US-led military coalition." "Thailand is not unaffected" by what? What has also affected Thailand that apparently ails America? Is it suggested that Thailand has some... ah, problems because it sent troops to the middle east, or is it the case that Thailand is affected and it had also sent troops to the middle east? After all, those who sent troops to the middle east or otherwise supported, rightly or wrongly, various efforts to stem jihadi aims, did so because the countries were already affected. And this is the rub- OPs like this one do not ever provide the premise, nor debate it. The premise is the fears and threats of islaimic insurgency both militarily and culturally are very real and numerous places in the world are reeling from these issues. "Unaffected" from what? From the conflict waging between the West and jihadis? From insurgency/terrorism in the South? From jihadis trafficking through BKK en route to wars? What is Thailand affected by?

It is this principle point that makes any commentary meaningful or not- there are real and palpable issues people are responding to. Are others "castigating islam" or responding to what affects their culture? At what point would a conversation take place regarding a segment of the population that frequently murders and oppresses others? Do civil societies avoid debate on such topics always, as long as one single person who is a party to that segment of the population remains law abiding? As long as two muslims on earth can meet and commune in friendship and good will toward others should we aver public debate on the numerous others who have designs on Western civil life? How can there be such OPEDs on the responses to these real issues without ever noting what the issues are?

Tip: castigate is a poor choice. Castigation implies a "high horse," as Obama has pointed out. However, there is little moral nexus from which people in America want a debate on islamic topics or oppose sharia, though a few religious folks. Castigation requires a rebuke or admonishment. There is none of that. Only Obama has ever telegraphed an opposing religious moral superiority. Therefore, this word is not just inartful, it is incorrect. People in the US are not castigating islam, they are announcing it as anathema to the US Constitution and American way of life. This shreds the constitution.

This article is actually repugnant. I don't mind the position, the faux outrage, or even the wide brush the OP paints with, but effectively calling a black man an Uncle Tom because he is not following the radical liberal party line reveals the militancy in the author. "Carson is an African-American as well, and yet he slurs the legacy of the black leaders of America's civil-rights struggle." Because he does not embrace the liberal black monolithic polity is slurs? This single sentence abuses the notion that this OPED has any value.

[arjunadawn]

If the U.S wishes to remain a "beacon of democracy" as mentioned in the O.P then the very first thing it should be doing is standing up to totalitarian supremacist ideologies such as Islam. Alas the current administration takes the opposite tack and takes swipes at the first amendment at the behest of Islamic pressure groups. The O.P title should be viewed as an exercise in projection.

Indeed- co-opt the landmarks and values and meanings of that which you oppose and through repetition, revision, and gaslighting assign new meaning, the preferred meaning. "Shred the constitution" is hardly achieved by condemning ideologies which are anathema to it. In fact, giving equality, sublimation, or concordance to islam/sharia would shred the constitution. Why would this demonstrable fact be objectionable?

It is absurd that Modern Man cannot consider the words or advice of its statesmen. Why is it incumbent upon the modern western man to deny a reality that was deeply appreciated by all his forefathers? I choose below some warnings/quotes but skipped all those that were in a christian or derogatory spirit. Just consider the ideological threat to the US Constitution and there is an evident reason to have the conversation.

Thomas Jefferson http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Quotations_on_Islam_from_Notable_Non-Muslims#Thomas_Jefferson

Alexis de Tocqueville On Democracy- http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Quotations_on_Islam_from_Notable_Non-Muslims#Alexis_de_Tocqueville

Benedict XVI http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Quotations_on_Islam_from_Notable_Non-Muslims#Benedict_XVI

George Bernard Shaw http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Quotations_on_Islam_from_Notable_Non-Muslims#George_Bernard_Shaw

John Quincy Adams http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Quotations_on_Islam_from_Notable_Non-Muslims#John_Quincy_Adams

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Quotations_on_Islam_from_Notable_Non-Muslims#Mustafa_Kemal_Atat.C3.BCrk

Rabindranath Tagore http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Quotations_on_Islam_from_Notable_Non-Muslims#Rabindranath_Tagore

Richard Dawkins http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Quotations_on_Islam_from_Notable_Non-Muslims#Richard_Dawkins

Salaman Rushdie http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Quotations_on_Islam_from_Notable_Non-Muslims#Salman_Rushdie

Winston Churchill http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Quotations_on_Islam_from_Notable_Non-Muslims#Winston_Churchill

Winston S.Churchill http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Quotations_on_Islam_from_Notable_Non-Muslims#Winston_S._Churchill

[chuckd]

This is a ridiculous thread based on an editorial that is so full of holes it should never have seen the light of day.

In the first place, Dr. Carson had every right under the 1st Amendment to voice an opinion about Muslims being elected to the Presidency. That right is undeniable in this instance.

Dr. Carson has not asked for any test to be taken by any candidate before they are sworn in or even campaign. Article VI of the Constitution states...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

The only ones in violation of the US Constitution are the author for trying to infringe on Dr. Carson's 1st Amendment rights and the Nation for even allowing such stupidity to go out under their masthead.

​End of story.

[Pinot]

The GOP race is just so entertaining. Trump and Fox News are at each others throat now. That is so perfect. The monster they created with his birther nonsense, has turned on them. Som nom na

Ben Carson...I thought brain surgeons were smart? Ben Carson is running in second. Oh my Buddha. That's right, a strong second.

Here is the bottom line, The lunatic fringe is now the Republican base.

[timendres]

I just saw a number of Muslims living in America being interviewed about the question "Would you consider Shariah law above the U.S. constitution?" An alarming number of them said "Yes, the law of Allah would ALWAYS supersede ANY laws created by man."

This is a valid concern - if a Muslim became president, would he (she?) be able to put aside their religious convictions and rule objectively?

The question is not fairly worded. A large number of Christians would say that God's laws would supersede the Constitution. The point are they willing to live under the constitution and abide by it.

That's more than a Clerk of Court in Kentucky will do....and a wannabe presidential candidate.

In the Declaration of Independence, the founders clearly stated that that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. [Those who do not believe in a God are free to consider nature and the cosmos as their creator] The Constitution was written to provide for governance that was properly restrained such that it did not supercede these inalienable rights, while allowing for the necessary governance of society. So well written it was, that in my mind only the ability of some States to continue the practice of slavery was the it's only real shortcoming, which was fortunately corrected by amendment.

The point being that with a proper Constitution, the choice of God's laws versus Constitutional laws should not be an issue. For instance, God's laws do not allow for murder, nor do man's. Some may point to gay marriage as an example of a collision of the two, but the right to gay marriage is not forcing anyone who believes it is wrong to marry a same sex partner. The are free to continue with their beliefs. As long as the government does not force a minister to perform a gay marriage against his beliefs, no problem, other venues exist to perform the marriage. The county clerk is forced to perform her duty as a government official, but she is not forced to be a government official. She is free to resign from that position and continue on with her beliefs. A little thought goes a long way.

Americans seem to have forgotten what freedom means. The Constitution gives you the freedom to live your life as you see fit, but not the right for force others to provide the life you believe should exist. Hence the trend of people attempting to use the government to force their agenda on their fellow citizens. In the early days of the country, people voted primarily based on a politician's record of protecting their freedoms. Now they vote primarily based on what the politician will give them, paying for such favors with the currency of their freedom. A sad and foreshadowing development.

[NOC]

When most of the world's terrorist acts are perpetrated by muslims, then Islamophobia becomes a natural reaction.

Most of the world's acts of terrorism are perpetuated by intelligence agencies to create conflict, among other reasons, which in turn, profits the banks and large corporations.

Most Muslims, as a whole, are normal people just trying to live their lives. I don't particularly like their culture, but most aren't trying to hurt someone. Most aren't racist. Two things that I value.

As for the constitution, of which the Nation writer knows little (if anything) about, the shredding process started decades ago.

[Traveling Sailor]

I just saw a number of Muslims living in America being interviewed about the question "Would you consider Shariah law above the U.S. constitution?" An alarming number of them said "Yes, the law of Allah would ALWAYS supersede ANY laws created by man."

This is a valid concern - if a Muslim became president, would he (she?) be able to put aside their religious convictions and rule objectively?

The question is not fairly worded. A large number of Christians would say that God's laws would supersede the Constitution. The point are they willing to live under the constitution and abide by it.

That's more than a Clerk of Court in Kentucky will do....and a wannabe presidential candidate.

In the Declaration of Independence, the founders clearly stated that that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. [Those who do not believe in a God are free to consider nature and the cosmos as their creator] The Constitution was written to provide for governance that was properly restrained such that it did not supercede these inalienable rights, while allowing for the necessary governance of society. So well written it was, that in my mind only the ability of some States to continue the practice of slavery was the it's only real shortcoming, which was fortunately corrected by amendment.

The point being that with a proper Constitution, the choice of God's laws versus Constitutional laws should not be an issue. For instance, God's laws do not allow for murder, nor do man's. Some may point to gay marriage as an example of a collision of the two, but the right to gay marriage is not forcing anyone who believes it is wrong to marry a same sex partner. The are free to continue with their beliefs. As long as the government does not force a minister to perform a gay marriage against his beliefs, no problem, other venues exist to perform the marriage. The county clerk is forced to perform her duty as a government official, but she is not forced to be a government official. She is free to resign from that position and continue on with her beliefs. A little thought goes a long way.

Americans seem to have forgotten what freedom means. The Constitution gives you the freedom to live your life as you see fit, but not the right for force others to provide the life you believe should exist. Hence the trend of people attempting to use the government to force their agenda on their fellow citizens. In the early days of the country, people voted primarily based on a politician's record of protecting their freedoms. Now they vote primarily based on what the politician will give them, paying for such favors with the currency of their freedom. A sad and foreshadowing development.

Very well said. Thank you!

[KarenBravo]

When most of the world's terrorist acts are perpetrated by muslims, then Islamophobia becomes a natural reaction.

Most of the world's acts of terrorism are perpetuated by intelligence agencies to create conflict, among other reasons, which in turn, profits the banks and large corporations.

Most Muslims, as a whole, are normal people just trying to live their lives. I don't particularly like their culture, but most aren't trying to hurt someone. Most aren't racist. Two things that I value.

As for the constitution, of which the Nation writer knows little (if anything) about, the shredding process started decades ago.

Yeah.....and Elvis is still alive and the moon landings were faked (wink, wink).

[rightlineman]

When most of the world's terrorist acts are perpetrated by muslims, then Islamophobia becomes a natural reaction.

Most of the world's acts of terrorism are perpetuated by intelligence agencies to create conflict, among other reasons, which in turn, profits the banks and large corporations.

Most Muslims, as a whole, are normal people just trying to live their lives. I don't particularly like their culture, but most aren't trying to hurt someone. Most aren't racist. Two things that I value.

As for the constitution, of which the Nation writer knows little (if anything) about, the shredding process started decades ago.

Yeah.....and Elvis is still alive and the moon landings were faked (wink, wink).

And @Nevershure, those building's going down, and increase in terrorist acts NOW and the HATE for the Western world goes back further than that.

Shock and Aww (multiple beheadings at a time), US troops in their teens and 20's, kicking in doors not knowing who, what or the language, with maybe the Bravo, learned on a computer war game, shooting whoever, because they are in control. Example-BlackWater. AND the unfortunately

you didn't get to see the daily damage on our new networks (since the Vietnam War), like the Arab nations did. Not terrorism right? Now go back to secure life in search of Elvis, just ask them.

[Asheron]

I just saw a number of Muslims living in America being interviewed about the question "Would you consider Shariah law above the U.S. constitution?" An alarming number of them said "Yes, the law of Allah would ALWAYS supersede ANY laws created by man."

This is a valid concern - if a Muslim became president, would he (she?) be able to put aside their religious convictions and rule objectively?

A Christian like Mike Huckabee has proven he does consider Christian law above the US constituation.

What? There is no "christian law" that even closely resembles sharia. And instead of wishing Huckabee said that give a link that proves he said it.

[Scott]

Inflammatory post removed.

[stevenl]

I just saw a number of Muslims living in America being interviewed about the question "Would you consider Shariah law above the U.S. constitution?" An alarming number of them said "Yes, the law of Allah would ALWAYS supersede ANY laws created by man."

This is a valid concern - if a Muslim became president, would he (she?) be able to put aside their religious convictions and rule objectively?

A Christian like Mike Huckabee has proven he does consider Christian law above the US constituation.

What? There is no "christian law" that even closely resembles sharia. And instead of wishing Huckabee said that give a link that proves he said it.

He is supporting Kim Davis in her attempts to place her 'Christian law' above US law.

[DisparateDan]

I think a google for on topic cartoons is always insightful, although there are inevitably thousands.

[metisdead]

Posts of a conspiratorial nature have been removed as well as the replies.

[Seastallion]

This is a ridiculous thread based on an editorial that is so full of holes it should never have seen the light of day.

In the first place, Dr. Carson had every right under the 1st Amendment to voice an opinion about Muslims being elected to the Presidency. That right is undeniable in this instance.

Dr. Carson has not asked for any test to be taken by any candidate before they are sworn in or even campaign. Article VI of the Constitution states...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

The only ones in violation of the US Constitution are the author for trying to infringe on Dr. Carson's 1st Amendment rights and the Nation for even allowing such stupidity to go out under their masthead.

​End of story.

Not very insightful on your part.

Indeed Carson has a right to voice his opinion, but his opinion, by extension, suggests a religious test should be applied, and thus his opinion suggests going against the constitution.

BTW, The Nation is Thai, and thus is not violating the US Constitution because it does not come under the US Constitution. Same goes for the writer. Do you really think non-US citizens and entities are governed by the US Constitution? If they are not governed by it, they can not be violating it.

[DisparateDan]

Off Topic but...

[Publicus]

A Christian like Mike Huckabee has proven he does consider Christian law above the US constituation.

And therefore Huckabee represents all Republican viewpoints, especially so based on his polling numbers.

It's ok if you don't understand a post, but better not to react to it.

Facts are that the Huckster is irrelevant.

Why bring the guy up?

And please post your proof that he would or has put faith above the Constitution.

Or does the 14thA not apply in the case of someone like Kim Davis?

Personally, I don't care but I think her case might go to the SCOTUS

I think her case might go to the SCOTUS

It's already gone to SCOTUS which told the clerk Davis to respect the Constitution and to adhere to it. SCOTUS, the federal circuit court of appeals, the federal district court, said the same thing to Davis. Kim Davis has absolutely no support in the Constitution, none. Carson's opinion too is 100% in contradiction of the Constitution.

Here is how SCOTUS has in just recent times protected the Constitution against resurgent American theocrats that have been persistently trying to shred the First and the Fourteenth Amendments....

McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)

Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.

Burstyn v. Wilson, 72 S. Ct. 777 (1952)

Government may not censor a motion picture because it is offensive to religious beliefs.

Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)

Court holds that the state of Maryland cannot require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause.

Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)

Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.

Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)

Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional, and in Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) the Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.

Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)

State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state's attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)

Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:

1) the government action must have a secular purpose;

2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;

3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)

Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.

Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)

State's moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether "pure" moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.

Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987)

Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of "creation science" in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.

Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)

Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause

http://infidels.org/library/modern/church-state/decisions.html

The list is a partial listing but it does add up to a lot of shredded parchment on the basement floor of a lot of wooden Christian evangelical churches.

The evangelical religious right think all of the above that the SCOTUS has ruled unconstitutional on the basis of the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment are instead good, desirable, worth fighting for. Most of the religion laws overturned by SCOTUS were made by a state government here or there, again and again over much time, generated by evangelicals of the radical Christian right.

The OP goes in the right direction, it just presents some of the case that the Republican evangelical Christian right are trying to shred the Constitution..

Edited September 28, 2015 by Publicus