Tag Archives: US Constitution

national news, political news, religious news

The doc softens his view of a Muslim president

deadstate-Ben-Carson

It turns out that Dr. Ben Carson doesn’t really and truly think no Muslim could serve as president of the United States.

The good doctor is right to change his mind … more or less.

Sharia law at issue

Carson  — one of 15 candidates seeking the Republican presidential nomination — said on “Meet the Press” that Islam is incompatible with the U.S. Constitution. Thus, he said, he couldn’t ever condone the idea of a Muslim running for president.

Now he says something different — and much more reasonable.

He believes now that if a Muslim were to disavow Sharia law then, by golly, he’d be all right with a Muslim running for — and possibly becoming — president of the United States.

You see — and I am sure Dr. Carson knows this — the Constitution is a secular document to which all presidents swear to defend and protect.

His purported fear of Sharia law was nonsense on its face when he said it over the weekend.

Anyone who takes the oath swears to set his or her religious faith aside when performing the duties of the public office. Sen. John F. Kennedy faced accusations during the 1960 presidential campaign that he would take orders — as a Roman Catholic — from the Vatican. He torched that concern with one speech in September 1960 in which he would promise fealty only to the Constitution were he to win the election.

According to The Hill newspaper: “If someone has a Muslim background, and they’re willing to reject those tenets [of Sharia law] and to accept the way of life we have, and clearly will swear to place our Constitution above their religion,” the 2016 hopeful said in a Monday night interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News Channel, “then I would then be quite willing to support them.”

There you have it. Reason and sanity have taken their rightful place in this discussion.

national news, political news

Birther issue becomes complicated

birther

One would have thought — at least I did — that the birther issue that dogged Barack Obama for his entire first term as president would have ended when he got re-elected in 2012.

Silly me. What was I thinking?

Now we have another presidential candidate with a citizenship issue to resolve — in the eyes of some.

It’s getting complicated.

Ted Cruz is the problem. Why?

Well, the junior U.S. senator from Texas in fact was born in another country … Canada, to be exact. His mother is an American; dad is a Cuban. But the Republican presidential candidate’s citizenship has been resolved because of his mother’s heritage. The Constitution only requires that one parent needs to be a citizen in order to qualify someone to run for president.

That didn’t matter with critics of President Obama, whose late mother also was an American. He was born in Hawaii, one of our states. He has produced a birth certificate that confirms what he has said all along.

Then someone stood up in a New Hampshire town hall discussion the other day and declared that Obama is a foreign-born Muslim.

Donald Trump, another GOP presidential candidate, was running the meeting. He didn’t come to the president’s defense on that nonsensical statement.

Why not? Well, according to some, Ted Cruz’s presence on the national political stage complicates it for Trump.

If he comes to Obama’s defense, then he all but admits his own questioning of the president’s constitutional eligibility was a sham. If he defends Cruz, then that, too, eliminates his own ridiculous doubts about whether Barack Obama was qualified to hold the office to which he’s been twice elected.

Ted Cruz is qualified to run for president. Barack Obama is qualified to hold that office.

Politicians have apologized in the past for making false statements … haven’t they?

Isn’t it time for Donald Trump to come clean and admit he, um, made a mistake?

national news, political news, religious news

No place for religious bigotry

2 Comments

ellison

U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., is one of just two Muslim members of Congress.

He has just posted this item on social media. I feel compelled to share it here.

He is answering two leading Republican presidential candidates’ recent assertions about those who practice the Islamic faith.

Ellison writes:

“The freedom of religion is a founding principle of our nation. Our Constitution gives this right to all Americans – including elected officials. For Ben Carson, Donald Trump, or any other Republican politician to suggest that someone of any faith is unfit for office is out of touch with who we are as a people. It’s unimaginable that the leading GOP presidential candidates are resorting to fear mongering to benefit their campaigns, and every American should be disturbed that these national figures are engaging in and tolerating blatant acts of religious bigotry.”

I believe I’ll let Rep. Ellison’s words stand on their own.

 

religious news

Muslims, Christians … whatever

Image #: 21630241 Dr. Benjamin Carson, director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, speaks to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland, March 16, 2013. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst (UNITED STATES - Tags: POLITICS HEALTH) REUTERS /JONATHAN ERNST /LANDOV

Ben Carson now has weighed in on the matter of religion and politics.

The good doctor’s take: Americans shouldn’t elect a Muslim as president, apparently because he believes the faith isn’t compatible with the U.S. Constitution.

Carson weighs in

I’m trying to find where in the Constitution it speaks to its compatibility with any religion. The only thing I can determine is that the Constitution — the finished document — is expressly non-religious. It doesn’t condone any religion. Not Christianity, or Judaism, not Islam, not Buddhist, Hindu or Shinto.

Surely, Dr. Carson — one of 16 individuals seeking the Republican presidential nomination — knows this. Doesn’t he?

It’s neutral. Get it? The only reference I can find even to the word “religion” is in Article VI, where it declares “no religious test” shall be given to anyone seeking public office anywhere in the United States of America.

How about we not talk about whether one’s religious faith qualifies — or disqualifies — him or her from serving a nation that comprises people of many faiths?

 

national news, political news, religious news

Religious intolerance is alive and kicking

liberty religion

The fellow who stood up in that Donald Trump town hall event and made those disparaging remarks about Muslims brings to mind a serious hypocrisy that fuels so much of today’s political debate.

You’ll recall the guy who said that Muslims present a problem in this country and he asked Trump how should the federal government “get rid” of those who adhere to Islam. Trump, of course, didn’t condemn the remarks as being bigoted and hateful.

It struck me, though, that so many on the right and far right keep saying two mutually exclusive things.

They keep harping on “religious liberty,” and accuse those on the left of “declaring war on Christians and Christianity.” The leader of that anti-Christian movement, in their eyes, is the president of the United States, who many of them believe is a closet Muslim.

Well, “religious liberty” is written into the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It’s a cherished civil right that — as I understand it — means that all Americans are free to practice whatever religion they wish.

That includes those who believe in Islam.

Why, then, do some — maybe many, for all I know — keep insisting, as that Trump town-hall yahoo said the other evening, that Muslims need to be shut down, silenced, denied their basic right to practice their religion?

That is precisely what that guy said, to applause from the rest of the crowd who had come to listen to Trump.

Do they believe in “religious liberty” for all … or just those who believe as they do?

 

State news

Group stains secessionists' name

Texas secessionists have enough of a negative reputation that they don’t need another stain on their soiled reputation.

But by golly, here comes a group that takes the argument a nonsensical step farther.

The “Republic of Texas” says the state, which joined the Union in 1845 after being independent for nine years, never really became part of the United States of America. This group meets monthly in what it calls a joint session of congress. It manufactures its own money.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/secede-%e2%80%98republic%e2%80%99-claims-texas-never-joined-us/ar-AA9yzL9

These yahoos even claim some type of diplomatic immunity by presenting ID cards to police officers who stop them for committing infractions of various natures.

The Republic of Texas went too far, according to the FBI, in ordering a judge in Kerrville to appear in a “court hearing” involving his foreclosure order on a Republic member’s home. The FBI broke into a meeting the group was conducting, didn’t arrest anyone but made it known that the federal agency took a dim view of the stunts the group is trying to pull.

Interestingly, the disruption of the meeting apparently ginned up some support for this fringiest of fringe groups. Amazing, indeed.

Man, I don’t know how to process all of this. We live in crazy times, I suppose. Any group can do just about anything, short of advocating for the violent overthrow of the government — which always has been the case, given our First Amendment rights written into the U.S. Constitution.

However … why this group? And why in Texas, for crying out loud?

Our state has enough public relations issues with which to deal without having to answer for the shenanigans of these loons.

 

legal news, national news, political news

10th vs. 14th amendments in gay marriage hearing

The U.S. Supreme Court is going to decide the fate of same-sex marriage in the United States.

Good luck, justices.

At issue are two questions: Whether states must allow same-sex couples to marry and whether states must recognize same-sex marriages that take place out-of-state. The case will decide the fates of same-sex marriage bans in Tennessee, Michigan, Kentucky and Ohio.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/supreme-court-to-decide-if-states-can-ban-gay-marriage/ar-AA8gjVE

Here is where I believe the case should turn: Which amendment to the U.S. Constitution has more sway in deciding this matter, the 10th or the 14th?

The 10th is the final amendment outlining the Bill of Rights. It says: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserves to the states respectively, or to the people.”

That’s pretty clear, yes? It means the states have power not reserved by the Constitution for the federal government.

OK, then came the 14th Amendment, ratified not long after the Civil War. It’s much lengthier and covers a lot of issues relating to rights of citizenship. But at the end of Section 1, it states that no state “shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Granted, the nine men and women of the nation’s highest court know a lot more about the law and the Constitution than I do, but my reading of the issue at hand is pretty clear. I believe the 14th Amendment trumps the 10th.

The issue as I see it is whether gay couples have the same right to marry as heterosexual couples. The Constitution, as federal judges have been ruling already, says they do. The Constitution lays out clearly that citizens shall not be deprived of “equal protection.” If that language in the 14th Amendment didn’t exist, I suppose you could argue that states — such as Texas — have the legal standing to ban same-sex marriage.

I do believe, though, that the language contained within the 14th Amendment makes it impossible for states to enact laws that override the Constitution.

There well may be some nuance that I’m missing. If it’s buried deep inside the language of the nation’s founding document, I’m sure the justices will find it.

I just don’t see how they can look past the clear and explicit language contained in the equal protection clause.

 

national news

What about the 'Three Rs' in South Carolina?

South Carolina legislators want to teach public school students there a lesson about the Constitution. They want also to require teachers spend three weeks each school year teaching students about the Second Amendment, the one that deals with gun ownership.

Three weeks on one amendment to the nation’s founding document?

And it’s the one dealing with guns?

What kind of craziness is occurring over yonder in the Palmetto State?

South Carolina Law Would Make Kids Study Second Amendment for 3 Weeks Every Year

Take a look at this: “As Ian Millhiser at Think Progress points out, that’s an enormous chunk of the school year, especially given that some South Carolina schools devote just two weeks to slavery and a week and a half to World War II.”

OK, that comes from Mother Jones, a publication not exactly friendly to the issues favored by the National Rifle Association. But Millhiser makes a good point about educational priorities.

Republican South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley has an A+ NRA rating. Both legislative chambers are controlled by Republicans. Of course, the Second Amendment is arguably the favorite amendment among the GOP, right along with the 10th, which lays out powers that states can assume when they aren’t covered by the federal government.

South Carolina’s public school students don’t need to be required to study one amendment — even if it’s the one that allows Americans to “keep and bear arms.”

That’s more important than the that guarantees free speech and freedom of religion? Or the one that guarantees all citizens “equal protection” under federal law?

As Mother Jones reports: “‘Even amongst a conservative constituency in South Carolina, I think they can rate that they have more abiding problems than this,’ says Dave Woodard, a political science professor at Clemson University who’s long served as a political consultant to Republican candidates in South Carolina.

“‘Most people are more concerned with math and science, and the fact that historically, South Carolina’s rankings in education have been abysmal. Nobody, I think, would say ‘The best way to improve education is to have a three-week segment on the Second Amendment. Boy, that’ll move us up in the national rankings!'”

The idea is nutty.

 

legal news

Feds aren't seeking to create 'moral standard'

Here’s a shocker: The Texas Legislature and its Republican super-majority in the House of Representatives is likely to consider legislation that blocks any effort to lift the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.

OK, it’s not a shocker. I was kidding.

State Rep. Cecil Bell, R-Magnolia, has filed House Bill 623 that would prevent the federal courts or the Congress from legalizing same-sex marriage.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/01/08/no-salaries-for-recognizing-gay-marriage-bill-says/

According to the Texas Tribune: “The federal government is trying to act to create moral standards, and that’s just not acceptable,” Bell said.

Let’s hold on for a moment.

I do not believe the feds are seeking to “create moral standards” with court rulings striking down same-sex marriage laws in several states. The impetus behind the rulings — in every instance — has been the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which grants full rights of citizenship to every American citizen. Full rights of citizenship means that every American is guaranteed “equal protection” under the law.

That means, quite clearly, that if you love someone who happens to be of the same sex as you, the Constitution gives you the right — as a citizen — to marry that individual, just as any citizen is able to marry someone of the opposite gender.

The Tribune reports: “The bill also requires state courts to dismiss legal actions that challenge a provision of the bill and award legal costs and attorney fees to the defendants. Citing the 11th Amendment, which gives states sovereign immunity, the bill also says the state isn’t subject to a lawsuit for complying with the act — regardless of a contradictory federal ruling.”

But wait, says a gay-rights group. Again, from the Tribune: “Daniel Williams, a legislative specialist for the gay rights group Equality Texas, said the bill would go against legal precedent.

“’This bill is retreading very well-established precedent here. In 1869, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Texas v. White that no, Texas does may not ignore federal law whenever it wants,’ Williams said. ‘Beyond it ignoring federal law, it would actually punish state employees who follow the law.’”

The setting of a “moral standard” is not at issue here. Adhering to federal law is what’s at stake.

national news, political news, State news

Gay marriage on its way … to Texas?

Do you ever feel as though you’re swimming against a tide that keeps getting stronger while it sucks the energy out of your efforts to fight it?

That’s how I’m feeling with this gay marriage issue.

I’m still grappling with the notion that it’s all right for people of the same sex to marry each other. I’m a traditionalist and my own values make it hard for me to embrace the idea of same-sex marriage as being the same as the marriage I have enjoyed for the past 43-plus years.

OK, I’ve laid down that marker.

I also understand what the law says, what’s in the U.S. Constitution and how all Americans are guaranteed equal protection under the law. Thus, it appears that states’ bans on gay marriage appear doomed.

That notion I will accept.

Florida has just begun allowing same-sex couples to marry. Federal judges — those damn “unelected judges,” in the eyes of conservatives — keep overturning state bans on same-sex marriage. A federal judge in Texas has ruled that our state’s ban — written into the Texas Constitution — violates the federal Constitution’s equal protection clause stated in the 14th Amendment. It grants full rights of citizenship to anyone born in the United States with zero regard to that people’s sexual orientation.

All of this makes perfect sense to me. If the states are governed by a federal framework — the Constitution — then the states are obligated to obey the rules set down within that framework.

Does any of this mean that all Americans must embrace the idea of same-sex partners getting married? Honestly, no.

All it means to me is that the law is the law and that states cannot impose their own laws that supersede the Constitution of the United States of America.

That includes bans on same-sex marriage.

I can feel that tide of political and cultural change getting stronger all the time.