Lion of the Blogosphere

Constitution and Muslims

Muslims have a Constitutional right to be president, if anyone would vote for them.

Ben Carson has a Constitutional right to urge people not to vote for a Muslim for president.

The people have a Constitutional right not to vote for a Muslim if they don’t want to.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

September 21, 2015 at 7:00 pm

Posted in Law, Politics

20 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Evangelical types on my Facebook feed are really lapping this up. Smart move on his part, especially in doubling down instead of apologizing.


    September 21, 2015 at 7:12 pm

  2. This is true. But, just as some people won’t vote for Huckabee because of his religious beliefs . . .

    Half Canadian

    September 21, 2015 at 7:13 pm

  3. Ben Carson, may, in his role as candidate, have this right, but the right to free speech is highly prescribed by non-discrimination laws.


    September 21, 2015 at 7:23 pm

  4. John Heilemann was on Morning Joe this morning and thought he has a drop-the-mike moment by declaring that Carson was wrong because of Article 6 of the Constitution. But Carson wasn’t talking about adding a new non Muslim requirement to the Presidential qualifications. He was talking about him personally.

    Yes, Muslims can run for President, but that doesn’t mean that I personally can’t take that into consideration when I make a decision on whom to vote for.

    Mike Street Station

    September 21, 2015 at 7:29 pm

    • Because there are very few white Muslims, liberals have a tendency (perhaps unconscious with some) to see it as more or less a racial label. So when Ben Carson or anybody else says he would never vote for a Muslim, to their ears that’s like saying a brown-skinned or black-skinned man should never become president. Obviously awful, wicked.

      Conversely if you look at polling there are lots of people, mainly liberals, who say they would never vote for an evangelical Protestant for president. That’s OK and not a media controversy because most evangelicals are white (at least it seems so) and therefore they can be judged on their actual views, which are abhorrent to an American liberal.


      September 21, 2015 at 7:53 pm

      • Hey, there are lots of white Muslims… the Tsarnaev brothers, John Walker Lindh, Eric Harroun, Zachary Chesser… all upstanding citizens!


        September 22, 2015 at 12:04 pm

  5. I don’t think this will hurt Carson that much, especially since he did not back down. Deep down at least half the American people agree with him anyway. Regardless, it’s a mute point since Barack was already the first Mooslum president.


    September 21, 2015 at 7:47 pm

    • moot


      September 22, 2015 at 6:30 am

  6. So is this new religious test to be Christians only, or will it just exclude Muslims (the same way Catholics as specifically excluded from the British throne) but all other faiths are OK.


    September 21, 2015 at 7:50 pm

  7. Besides, I’ve been reading this blog. Don’t we already have a Muslim prez?


    September 21, 2015 at 7:51 pm

  8. The problem with America is that everyone is tripping over themselves to be fair to those who would never reciprocate. I’ll take smart over fair any day.


    September 21, 2015 at 8:50 pm

    • That’s exactly right. Cecil the Lion, all day every day.


      September 22, 2015 at 10:22 am

  9. Islam is more like a totalitarian political system than a religion. I agree with Carson completely. And good for him for speaking out. I hope he has lots of security because some batshit crazy Muslim might try to take him out.


    September 21, 2015 at 8:54 pm

  10. I wish Carson had said we don’t need another Muslim president so soon after the last one since we have yet to elect even a single Hindu, Rastafarian, or Vodouist.

    In a 2014 Harris Poll that asked people about a hypothetical candidate’s faith and other attributes, Muslims fared better than I’d have predicted, although worse than atheists and transgenders. Scroll down to Table 1:

    Mark Caplan

    September 21, 2015 at 9:14 pm

  11. This is why the constitution and America are irrelevant. If anyone can show and become an “American”, then it means nothing. It is not cute saying that you do not care about race. If you are rich then your wealth depends on poor proles to keep you rich. Why should a negro, or an Indian care about some rich white guy’s money? Take it and redistribute it! It happened to South Africa. America is not a real country and has not been for a long time.


    September 21, 2015 at 10:34 pm

    • True. It was a mistake for the Founders to write the Constitution in such a way that it seemed to care only about these abstract, supposedly universal, rights. They should have codified America’s racial, ethnic, linguistic, religious, etc. particularities more explicitly.


      September 21, 2015 at 11:38 pm

      • The founding fathers could not imagine tens of millions of people leaving their countries and invading the west. When everyone was a farmer it did not really matter where you lived, your life was scratching dirt. Most of the refugees in Europe are just looking for a lifestyle upgrade because they are too corrupt and stupid to build this life in their own country. This road, the alt-right, leads to white nationalism. There is no other answer. If white countries are not white then what are they?


        September 22, 2015 at 1:03 am

  12. The use of “Constitutional” is a deceptive reversal of order. It is more mundane to say that a Muslim has a legal right (assuming all other requirements met) to run for President of MRKA. But in a time of enforced equality this only means that this legal understanding is up for radical change AT ANY TIME. And so “we” can then “see” the psych-ops utilized with the use of the word “Constitutional.” In effect, the BOLD CLAIM is that the jihadist cannot be legally disqualified from running for President of the United States NO MATTER WHAT. IT IS HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. No such claim could possibly be written in stone ESPECIALLY by the “rules” of the radicals. Radicals lack a constitution and shall not be protected by a malleable legal one in order to destroy another’s constitution.


    September 22, 2015 at 2:14 am

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: