2016 Election

[it]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

used a religious test to reject all of Islam
as being inconsistent with the US Constitution.
But the Constitution (6th Amendment) prohibits any religious test
from ever being used as a qualification of a candidate.


If US voters use such a test in voting for or against any candidate,
no one will know except the voters, themselves
... such is the definition of hypocrisy.

So I'll ask again: Do you seriously think that the correct interpretation of the constitutional amendment's idea of a "test" within the context of the amendment includes the voter's choice of who to vote for as such as test?

As Carson himself misses, whether it is "muslim" or "test", context is kind of important in understanding the meaning of things...

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by traceur

So I'll ask again: Do you seriously think that the correct interpretation
of the constitutional amendment's idea of a "test" within the context of
the amendment includes the voter's choice of who to vote for as such as test? ...

No.

My interpretation is that Carson's statement is a test in that:
No Muslim can be President of the US because Islam is inconsistent with the US Constitution.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

If US voters use such a test in voting for or against any candidate,
no one will know except the voters, themselves
... such is the definition of hypocrisy.

Such is the definition of bullshit! You're telling me if I vote for, or against, someone because I disagree with, or fear, their religious tenets, that makes me a hypocrite? Get the fuck out of here, it's called democracy, it's called freedom, don't force me to call sexobon to give you a ten minute speech on the men and women who have given all, to protect my right to use any fucking basis I want in making selection.

Let's see... no, he's half Jew... no, heard he's a faggot... Woman, oh please... not you negro.
Appalling? Yes. Disgusting? Yes. Illegal? No. Hypocritical? Nope, not at all, because the constitutional point of law that nobody can be barred from running, has absolutely no bearing on how or why individuals vote. Wanting the ballot to be open to all, but not wanting certain people elected, is not hypocrisy, it's democracy.
Do you suggest I submit my choices along with my reasons for them, to the ballot approval board, Senator McCarthy?

[it]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

No.

My interpretation is that Carson's statement is a test in that:
No Muslim can be President of the US because Islam is inconsistent with the US Constitution.

Again, context. He is essentially saying no Muslim can be a good president because he thinks Islam is inconsistent with the US constitution, thus, he does not think Americans should vote for a Muslim president. The "test" is in the voting booth.

Contrast with the requirement for the royalty to belong to The Church of England in the very same rule they just gained independence from - which is the most likely context at the time, or for that matter with the Imam's self-given right to test the faith and filter presidential candidates in Iran prior to being allowed to run, if you want a more recent example.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

My interpretation is that Carson's statement is a test in that:

Yeah, but who the hell is Carson? He's just some guy. His personal test means nothing.

[Lamplighter]

He is essentially saying ...

Not "essentially". That becomes your interpretation.
Read his actual words, above.

Contrast with the requirement for the royalty to belong to the church of England ...

The US is not England, so any such a contrast is a misdirection.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by glatt

Yeah, but who the hell is Carson? He's just some guy. His personal test means nothing.

No, he is a formal candidate of the G.O.P. as their nomination for President of the US.
As GOP Nominee for President, his "personal test" could be meaningful. (e.g., in selection of Vice President)

Otherwise, I would agree --- just as I agree or disagree with Dwellars above saying how they interpret Islam.

[it]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Not "essentially". That becomes your interpretation.
Read his actual words, above.



The US is not England, so any such a contrast is a misdirection.

....It's not England, but it was Britain, and for the writers of the constitution, very recently. This was the historical context the amendment was written in.

Given as they just recently deposed a monarchy that had an official religious test, it is far more likely they meant it in the context, rather then an abstract post-modern meaning of being judged for their religion, which is in itself a meaning the concept of judgment wouldn't even start to form until 2 centuries after, which would have being an amazing but very unlikely prediction of social evolution for any of them to have made.


You are somehow under the impression that the later interpretation is free of personal interpretation and the clear cut meaning, when it is completely built in a verbal context that would have being impossible at the time. If you hear someone from the 17th century say the word "ship", they probably didn't mean a spaceship (Also you may want to check if ghostbusters do ear exams).

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

... Wanting the ballot to be open to all, but not wanting certain people elected, is not hypocrisy, it's democracy. ...

Exactly.
But that is not what Carson said. Pls read his actual words.

Closing the Presidential ballot to all Muslims because
"Islam is not consistent with the US Constitution" is,
in itself, not consistent with the 6th Amendment.

Therefore, a voting for a candidate because he/she makes such a proposal is hypocritical.

The US went through this before with the Catholic religion and JF Kennedy.
We put it behind us.

[it]

I feel like I should explain better....

The leap of logic you are making is that "a test" does not have to be an actual concrete disqualifying test judging the person's qualifications and legally preventing them from running, but rather that people judging the qualification of the person fall under such a test.
The idea that personal judgement holds any weight at all, or it's current evolution to the notion that personal judgement is bad, is a rather modern one. The semantic framework did not exist at the time, and for someone to try to establish it would been nothing short of poetry (Or a day to day conversation in my 1st marriage).

In contrast, the established concept of such a test at the time was the one given by the heritage of a newly independent British colony, that no longer serves a Monarch that used to have a religious requirement for the sit.

[it]

@DanaC, historical context is your thing, help out here...

edit: Just realized mentions don't work here....

[DanaC]

Well they kind of do :P But not in that way, no.

You're right that the idea of a religious test had very specific connotations. I think the question here is whether or not this politician was advocating restriction from running for office on the grounds of religion, or expressing a view about whether a particular religion was compatible with the constitution.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Can "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification..." be interpreted other than
as ”no” religious test, not yours or mine or some orange-vs-black pundits

Number one, the US Constitution always places restrictions on law, not on people. That's actually how it operates and why the language in the amendment on religion (Amendment 1, not Article 6 here) says "US Congress shall place no restrictions..."

Number two, this section of text is in an Article speaking to "Oaths of Office". It's a discussion of what restrictions can be placed on people entering government, by government, in the form of Oaths that must be sworn on taking office. I believe this particular section has rarely been tested in case law (there are few annotations on it) because it's well-understood ...and does not mean what you think it does.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by traceur

I feel like I should explain better....

The leap of logic you are making is that "a test" does not have to be
an actual concrete disqualifying test judging the person's qualifications
and legally preventing them from running, but rather that people judging
the qualification of the person fall under such a test.

I have not said that.

Ben Carson's words already made a religious test of Islam as not being consistent with the US Constitution.
That statement is a test and is, in itself, not consistent with the Constitution.

My argument is that it is not illegal (unconstitutional) to vote for Carson
because he made such an "unconstitutional test", but it is hypocritical.

In contrast, the established concept of such a test at the time was...

This is Scalian logic-tool used to argue that because my knowledge
of the historical thinking back at that time is authoritative, therefore:
"The Constitution means what I say it means."

[henry quirk]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Religious_Test_Clause