Monsoor Ijaz poses a question to Mitt Romney, Republican primary candidate for President of the United States:
I asked Mr. Romney whether he would consider including qualified Americans of the Islamic faith in his cabinet as advisers on national security matters, given his position that "jihadism" is the principal foreign policy threat facing America today. He answered, "…based on the numbers of American Muslims [as a percentage] in our population, I cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified. But of course, I would imagine that Muslims could serve at lower levels of my administration."
The United States Constitution:
Questions (for Mr. Romney and all of us):Article. VI.
Clause 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.
In what way does considering an American citizen’s religious affiliation as in any way relevant to fitness to serve in government office NOT a religious test? And how could that not be deemed a violation of the Constitution?--the BB
In what possible manner can religious demographics be related to justifying cabinet positions without violating the United States Constitution?
Have you ever read the United States Constitution?
UPDATE:
If you don't think this is a current and vital issue, may I refer you to Leaves on the Current's post at Daily Kos titled "Tonight, the Constitution Died." Writing of the YouTube debate among Republican presidential hopefuls, Leaves notes that someone held up a Bible and asked the candidates if they believed every word in it is true. As Leaves notes, a citizen is free to ask any question. But NOT ONE candidate, nor Anderson Cooper, pointed out Article VI, Clause 3 (cited above). Which might lead one to wonder: Has any Republican candidate for President of the United States read the Constitution? And if they have, does any of them believe in it? There is an oath to be taken, after all (though Bush has demonstrated how lightly that can be taken).
Leaves on the Current writes:
No religious test. None. Yet what we saw tonight was a religious test. A crystal-clear, absolutely open and direct violation of Article VI of the Constitution.
And no one in that roomful of politicians and political experts and politically committed Americans had the courage to say so, or perhaps even the knowledge to recognize it for what it was.
Read the article.
SSJOAS!
9 comments:
The Constitution? Is that in Doctrine and Covenants or the Pearl of Great Price?
I love your Constitution Blogging feature. Thank you.
I had my students in REL 101, History of Religion in America, read and discuss the religion clause of the First Amendment this fall. At least now they know what's in it and a little about how it got there! And also how various parties have interpreted it in various ways.
Love,
Jane (card-carrying member of the ACLU)
Neither, LOL. But it IS a pearl of great price IMHO.
Not sure this went through; if it did, you don't need it twice, LOL.
Sweet suffering Jesus, indeed.
~~shudder~~
When I lived in the NW, I thought about going to Canada daily. I don't, anymore--but I'm really careful with what I read, because it's so easy to give into such cynicism as would be totally defeatist. Posts like yours, help me stay committed to the America I want. Thank you.
An important post...
I wonder if any of them has actually read the document in question.
This is a really sad state of affairs, is it not?
Off to check out the links.
And explain to me how I got along for so long without reading this blog???
Same way I got along without reading yours, FranIAm. The world is vast and we know so little of it. But it's nice to find new friends!
Kirstin, way back when I used to say that if Reagan were elected I would move to Canada. Well, he did and I didn't. It is challenging to stay informed without yielding to despair. My fantasy novel is about defeating a demon of darkness and despair--so even fantasy fiction is, like all writing, autobiographical at heart. Funny how I had the story line by 1974 but didn't write it until I was in my 60s--had to go through it to write it, I guess.
JaneR--each person who becomes informed is one more agent of liberty. Thanks for the good work. I was wondering what I might say about the Constitution this week and the bit about Romney slapped me in the face. So I'm guessing I won't run out of material anytime soon.
Confession to all readers: I found civics classes (or social studies) boring beyond words back in high school. How a bill becomes a law? Zzzzzzzzzzzz. Now I see how important it all is and wish I knew American history better (though my historical interests remain in the millennium from 100 BCE to 900 CE). Anything I say about the Constitution is from the viewpoint of an ordinary citizen with no expertise in law or poli sci.
Zzzzzzz, you say?
Buddhapalian, forgive me--I know exactly what I've done. :-)
Mary Sue, stole my thunder a bit. I was going to ask just what is this Constitution thing that you continue to write about?
The Constitution and the Bill of rights are being swept away, and few seem to notice or care.
Oh wait. Any threat to tamper with the Second Amendment draws howls of protest from the citizens who insist on their right to arm themselves.
And THAT, Mimi, is precisely why I decided to start blogging about it. I figure a little education, a few reminders, just putting the text out there in front of people might not hurt and could even help. An act of faith, pure faith.
Post a Comment