2016 Election

[it]

The deeper conversations about how you account for a person's faith and the potential conflict between muslim faith and western values is interesting and a worthwhile debate...

But are you seriously saying that a voter's choice of who to vote for is unconstitutional because it can qualify as a test?

[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.

[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."

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

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."

Scalia said the Constitution means what I say it means

Therefore

The Constitution means what Lamplighter says it means.

Q E fuckin' D people

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Scalia said the Constitution means what I say it means
Therefore
The Constitution means what Lamplighter says it means.
Q E fuckin' D people

Apres le deluge, je serai roi.



.

[it]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

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.




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."

No. I am not appealing to my own authority built by what I know, I am building it on specific pieces of information, statement's who's factual nature can be discussed and examined. I am not saying that "C is right because look how much I know", I am saying "I am right because based on the facts that I know, A & B, we can understand that C doesn't mean D".

Now, A & B can be disputed, and so can their relationship to C:
Perhaps I am wrong to think that america was a british colony that has recently gained independence at the time of writing the constitution, perhaps I am wrong to think that the concept of subjective weight in judging is one that has developed with post modernism, or perhaps I made some logical fallacy in connecting the pieces of information themselves to the context I described, and if one of those is the case, you could - quite easily - provide information to dispute it.

However, appealing to my own authority is not one of them, and let me make it clear that I have none - I am not american and it is quite likely you've learned plenty of things about american history that I did not). Frankly, in my experience the only people who's authority is worth anything are those that never need to appeal to it in the first place.

tldr - My arguments are built on bra sizes, not hat stores.

[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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The people who would risk boarding a leaky little boat, being devoured by dragons or falling off the end of the Earth, had to be pretty fucking desperate. They were, not just England but all of Europe was owned/controlled by the landed gentry. If you weren't born into it, or manage to marry into it, you lived by the grace of the gentry. Did the work they wanted you to, ate the food they allowed you to, and worshipped the God they told you to. You had no choice because they owned the land, all the land, plus every plant and animal on it. If you ate any of those plants or animals, you were a criminal. Since jails are costly, you were disposed of by execution, or sold into indentured service in the New World.

But once you get past the dragons, work out your indenture, things look better. Land is pretty much for the taking, England doesn't fuck with you too much, mostly indirectly through the merchants in Boston, New York, Philly. You can find an area where the people speak the same language and share the same God(s). Life isn't exactly easy but at least it's better than Europe if you're poor.

Now these Guys in Philly with their fancy britches, gold watches and book learning, not to mention scary big red headed General Washington, say here we go, one big government to bring us all together. What? Are you kidding? After the boats and dragons, and war, you want us to give it all up? To willingly submit to your will, your taxes, your choice of God(s)? I don't fucking think so. Even most of the people who felt they belonged to the religion which would be chosen as official, didn't think it was a good idea.

The dust up in England around changing the official state religion really didn't mean jack shit to the peasants, they were fucked either way. Whereas here there was more at stake for the little people... and they were armed.

So the wig wearers in Philly heard their plan hooted down, and in order to calm the opposition and reassure the bumpkins out in the sticks, like Rhode Island, they wrote the no state religion guaranty into the Constitution. But that was immediately forgotten until the lawyers figured out how the make a buck off it after WW II. The reality was the communities were far enough apart that if some one with the wrong credentials showed up, the were sent packing. Religious discrimination was open and popular. Several states even wrote laws barring the wrong kind of people from holding public office.

Now, after 200 years of warm and fuzzy, the neighbors are just like us, you want to talk about the founding father's intentions? No, the founding fathers did what they had to do to finish the job, went home and didn't give a rat's ass about what was actually going on in the hinterlands. Look, if Delaware passes and lives happily with a law saying only certain kinds of Christians can hold office. And the Feds don't say anything for all that time, then quibbling over the wording and intentions of the founding fathers is mental masturbation. The feds can force people into the NSA's desert camps, but they can't force people to change their past.

[classicman]

journalists pick a side and work it until they have their facts but like the Federalist crowd they stop when they have the facts they want never looking deeper.

[Zathris]

The following video wuz published 2 months ago, but it just appeared in my sidelist.

[Big Sarge]

After watching the debates, I'm leaning toward Sanders. I know this is a radical shift for me from 4 years ago, but I feel we need it

[tw]

Originally Posted by Big Sarge

After watching the debates, I'm leaning toward Sanders.

His details are completely different. But his overall strategy (or how he promotes himself) is similar to what Ross Perot did.

[xoxoxoBruce]

OK, 2016 election minus one year, time for the candidate anointed by the money behind the curtain to be revealed. Time for him... her? fuck no... to start his push, having so far avoided interaction with the dog & pony show, which might have soiled the voter's perception of the white knight.

Oh, and Putin blew up that plane to have an excuse to push further into the middle east.

[Lamplighter]

Herman Cain has been sitting quietly and is looking very good now.

.