Herman Cain said that he would Not appoint a Muslim to any position in his administra

[Uncensored2008]

You are correct....but that is not what is the blatant disregard of the Constitution....This is the Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 3...last phrase of the last sentence "but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

So?

Cain never suggested that anyone belong to an state sponsored religion. (Religious test.)

It is a religious test to say that one would not appoint someone because of their particular religion...

No dummy, it isn't.

That second year of schooling sure would have helped you...

Your insults are cute...so tell me....how does Cain's comments NOT go against the "no religious test" clause in Article VI?

{The Test Act of 1673 in England obligated all persons filling any office, civil or military, to take oaths of supremacy and allegiance, to subscribe to a declaration against transubstantiation, and to receive the sacrament within three months of taking office.

The oath for the Test Act of 1673 was:

"I, N, do declare that I do believe that there is not any transubstantion in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or in the elements of the bread and wine, at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsovever."

In 1678 the act was extended thus:

"I, N, do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare, that I do believe that in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is not any Transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever: and that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other Saint, and the Sacrifice of the Mass, as they are now used in the Church of Rome, are superstitious and idolatrous..."

The necessity of receiving the sacrament as a qualification for office was abolished under George IV, and all acts requiring the taking of oaths and declarations against transubstantiation etc. were repealed by the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829.}

Religious test - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your ignorance is appalling.

 

[bodecea]

herman cain is a joke and won't win one state. people should stop wasting tme on him

Have you stocked up on crosses to burn on his lawn, just in case?

It's posts like this that show us what is foremost on YOUR mind.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So, tell us...are all Muslims out to get us?

No, that's Republicans, just as Madcow told you, dummy...

I posed this to Dr.Dreck earlier, he was either too stupid, too dishonest, or both to deal with it. So there is ZERO chance it will infiltrate either of your functional brain cells; but to drive the point home to lurkers amidst your barrage of lies;

I talked to this guy "Dave," nice enough fellow - at least to me. Dave had gotten in some trouble a few years back and ended up in prison. He joined up with the Aryan Nations while inside.

Now I've got to tell you, because you clearly lack the wits to comprehend this on your own, regardless of how nice a guy Dave was, Aryan Nations is a fucked up group, their ideas and agenda are evil. Having a beer with Dave didn't make the creed he followed any less evil. FURTHER, the fact that he followed such a creed cast aspersions on Dave, the fact that he followed such a creed shows a flaw in his moral character, even if he never acted on the teachings of the group.

Evil is evil, even if nice people spout it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The evil of Islam? Or the evil of those who do bad things with Islam as an excuse for their evil?

The evil of Islam, dummy. Like Nazism, Islam is an evil creed. Not every Nazi was evil, some were good people. Not every Muslim is evil - but the creeds remain evil regardless of whether a portion of the followers are good people.

This is a concept that requires a certain sophistication of thought, you have no hope of grasping it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The OT calls for the death of homosexuals also period. Should we call Judaism evil?

Sure, right after you show nations that enforce such a call.

So you ARE calling all Muslims evil.

I'm calling you stupid, clumsy and dishonest.

 

[bodecea]

You are correct....but that is not what is the blatant disregard of the Constitution....This is the Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 3...last phrase of the last sentence "but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

So?

Cain never suggested that anyone belong to an state sponsored religion. (Religious test.)

No....nothing about a "state sponsored religion" in Article VI, just that there shall be no religious test.....also check out the Supreme Court case Torcaso v. Watkins.

It is a religious test to say that one would not appoint someone because of their particular religion...

No dummy, it isn't.

Yes it is.

That second year of schooling sure would have helped you...

There's nothing quite as ironically funny as watching someone like you call someone else a dummy as you show an appalling lack of intelligence on the topic.

Your insults are cute...so tell me....how does Cain's comments NOT go against the "no religious test" clause in Article VI?

{The Test Act of 1673 in England obligated all persons filling any office, civil or military, to take oaths of supremacy and allegiance, to subscribe to a declaration against transubstantiation, and to receive the sacrament within three months of taking office.

The oath for the Test Act of 1673 was:

"I, N, do declare that I do believe that there is not any transubstantion in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or in the elements of the bread and wine, at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsovever."

In 1678 the act was extended thus:

"I, N, do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare, that I do believe that in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is not any Transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever: and that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other Saint, and the Sacrifice of the Mass, as they are now used in the Church of Rome, are superstitious and idolatrous..."

The necessity of receiving the sacrament as a qualification for office was abolished under George IV, and all acts requiring the taking of oaths and declarations against transubstantiation etc. were repealed by the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829.}

Religious test - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ENGLAND!

Your ignorance is appalling.

And yet, YOU are the one bringing up a law from ENGLAND to dispute what the UNITED STATE Constitution clearly says.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So....when you signing up to go wipe out this Scourge?

In your minute mind, did the Russians (because you just KNOW America had nothing to do with it - Olbermann told you!) hunt down and kill every single Nazi in existence? If not, how was Nazism defeated?

 

[Uncensored2008]

And yet, YOU are the one bringing up a law from ENGLAND to dispute what the UNITED STATE Constitution clearly says.

Wow dummy, your ignorance is appalling.

 

[Vanquish]

You are correct....but that is not what is the blatant disregard of the Constitution....This is the Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 3...last phrase of the last sentence "but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

So?

Cain never suggested that anyone belong to an state sponsored religion. (Religious test.)

It is a religious test to say that one would not appoint someone because of their particular religion...

No dummy, it isn't.

That second year of schooling sure would have helped you...

Your insults are cute...so tell me....how does Cain's comments NOT go against the "no religious test" clause in Article VI?

{The Test Act of 1673 in England obligated all persons filling any office, civil or military, to take oaths of supremacy and allegiance, to subscribe to a declaration against transubstantiation, and to receive the sacrament within three months of taking office.

The oath for the Test Act of 1673 was:

"I, N, do declare that I do believe that there is not any transubstantion in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or in the elements of the bread and wine, at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsovever."

In 1678 the act was extended thus:

"I, N, do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare, that I do believe that in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is not any Transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever: and that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other Saint, and the Sacrifice of the Mass, as they are now used in the Church of Rome, are superstitious and idolatrous..."

The necessity of receiving the sacrament as a qualification for office was abolished under George IV, and all acts requiring the taking of oaths and declarations against transubstantiation etc. were repealed by the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829.}

Religious test - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your ignorance is appalling.

DUMB ASS. I AM A LAWYER WHO WINS CASES BASED ON TITLE VII ALL THE TIME.
Translation: You don't know shit compared to me.

Where you have gone off the rails (translation: are totally incorrect) is that I'm not saying that Title VII is a religious test. This is about discrimination. Not hiring someone based on their religion is UNLAWFUL AND ACTIONABLE.

You're an idiot who doesnt know his ass from a hole in the wall. And your gobbledygook that you posted doesn't mean shit.

Go read up on discrimination law suits. Better yet, dont. Just leave the discussion.

 

[Too Tall]

Herman Cain is asked whether he would be willing to appoint a Muslim as a Cabinet officer or judge.

“No. I will not,” he said. “And here’s why: There’s this creeping attempt — there’s this attempt to gradually ease Sharia law and the Muslim faith into our government.” According to Cain, many American Muslims “are trying to force their Sharia law onto the rest of us.”

That’s just stupid. As in not very bright. By comparison, the Sharia conspiracy crowd makes the birthers look downright sane and reasonable. It will be interesting to see who, if anyone, among the GOP mainstream steps up to repudiate such nonsense. After all, the Constitution explicitly rules out such nonsense, stating point blank that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

I guess Herman Cain doesn’t believe in the Constitution.

| Jay Bookman

YouTube - ‪Herman Cain refuses to appoint a Muslim in his administration‬‏

Your interpretation of the Constitution is wrong.

“no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

This has been interpreted to mean that no federal employee, whether elected or appointed, career or political, can be required to adhere to or accept any religion or belief. This clause immediately follows one requiring all federal and state officers to take an oath or affirmation of support to the Constitution, indicating that the requirement of such a statement does not imply any requirement by those so sworn to accept a particular religion or a particular doctrine.

Cain is not requiring a muslim to adhere to or accept a particular religion and it clearly means he does not have to accept a person of a particular religion or doctrine.

Sorry pal. You're not picking the right part of the law.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) makes it illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex. The law also makes it illegal to retaliate against a person because the person complained about discrimination.

I am primarily a discrimination lawyer so let me set you straight. Saying you wont hire Muslims because they are Muslims....IS DISCRIMINATION.

Period.

*pfft* I love how everyone around here thinks some whackadoo interpretation of what they think the law is is somehow right, simply because they have an opinion.

I didn't pick any part of the law, the dips that say Cain's statement that he won't hire any muslims insist that it is unconstutional. It isn't!

As far as the law is concerned, when Cain as President doesn't hire any muslims to serve at his pleasure, what are they going to do about it? Hire you to sue him? Good luck with that.

 

[bodecea]

So....when you signing up to go wipe out this Scourge?

In your minute mind, did the Russians (because you just KNOW America had nothing to do with it - Olbermann told you!) hunt down and kill every single Nazi in existence? If not, how was Nazism defeated?

Comparing Muslims to Nazis?

 

[bodecea]

Your interpretation of the Constitution is wrong.

“no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

This has been interpreted to mean that no federal employee, whether elected or appointed, career or political, can be required to adhere to or accept any religion or belief. This clause immediately follows one requiring all federal and state officers to take an oath or affirmation of support to the Constitution, indicating that the requirement of such a statement does not imply any requirement by those so sworn to accept a particular religion or a particular doctrine.

Cain is not requiring a muslim to adhere to or accept a particular religion and it clearly means he does not have to accept a person of a particular religion or doctrine.

Sorry pal. You're not picking the right part of the law.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) makes it illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex. The law also makes it illegal to retaliate against a person because the person complained about discrimination.

I am primarily a discrimination lawyer so let me set you straight. Saying you wont hire Muslims because they are Muslims....IS DISCRIMINATION.

Period.

*pfft* I love how everyone around here thinks some whackadoo interpretation of what they think the law is is somehow right, simply because they have an opinion.

I didn't pick any part of the law, the dips that say Cain's statement that he won't hire any muslims insist that it is unconstutional. It isn't!

As far as the law is concerned, when Cain as President doesn't hire any muslims to serve at his pleasure, what are they going to do about it? Hire you to sue him? Good luck with that.

The problem with Cain's statement is that he said ahead of time he will NOT hire Muslims....because they are Muslim. The Constitution, Article VI, says there will be NO religious test.....basing employment on one's religion is a religious test.....Cain has set himself up for future lawsuits by Muslim job applicants because of the intent of his statement.

Anyone who knows anything about discrimination in the workplace, it's extremely hard to prove UNLESS the employer conveniently states he won't hire XXX people because they are XXX people.

 

[Uncensored2008]

DUMB ASS. I AM A LAWYER WHO WINS CASES BASED ON TITLE VII ALL THE TIME.
Translation: You don't know shit compared to me.

ROFL

Yer just a legend in your own mind.

Where you have gone off the rails (translation: are totally incorrect) is that I'm not saying that Title VII is a religious test. This is about discrimination. Not hiring someone based on their religion is UNLAWFUL AND ACTIONABLE.

Appointment to the cabinet is not hiring. For a lawyer, you sure are ignorant of legal concepts.

Appointment to the cabinet is by design, based on ideological factors, you ignorant slut.

BTW, I am NOT a lawyer - nor do I pretend to be one on the internet.....

 

[Uncensored2008]

Comparing Muslims to Nazis?

Unfair to the Nazis?

 

[Uncensored2008]

The problem with Cain's statement is that he said ahead of time he will NOT hire Muslims....because they are Muslim.

The problem with your statement is that you're lying through your teeth...

Cain said he wouldn't appoint a Muslim to his cabinet, he explained why. He didn't say he wouldn't hire a Muslim - that is a shameless lie by you and the other fascists.

Hey, he's off the plantation, you do what you have to in order to destroy him!

 

[bodecea]

The problem with Cain's statement is that he said ahead of time he will NOT hire Muslims....because they are Muslim.

The problem with your statement is that you're lying through your teeth...

Cain said he wouldn't appoint a Muslim to his cabinet, he explained why. He didn't say he wouldn't hire a Muslim - that is a shameless lie by you and the other fascists.

Hey, he's off the plantation, you do what you have to in order to destroy him!

Again, it's always interesting to see how your mind works on a topic.

 

[bodecea]

DUMB ASS. I AM A LAWYER WHO WINS CASES BASED ON TITLE VII ALL THE TIME.
Translation: You don't know shit compared to me.

ROFL

Yer just a legend in your own mind.

Where you have gone off the rails (translation: are totally incorrect) is that I'm not saying that Title VII is a religious test. This is about discrimination. Not hiring someone based on their religion is UNLAWFUL AND ACTIONABLE.

Appointment to the cabinet is not hiring. For a lawyer, you sure are ignorant of legal concepts.

Appointment to the cabinet is by design, based on ideological factors, you ignorant slut.

BTW, I am NOT a lawyer - nor do I pretend to be one on the internet.....

Uncensored gets more shrill the worse his argument becomes.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Again, it's always interesting to see how your mind works on a topic.

It's always interesting to note the racism of you leftists when a black man DARES to defy their DNC massahs and hold conservative views.

 

[bodecea]

You are correct....but that is not what is the blatant disregard of the Constitution....This is the Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 3...last phrase of the last sentence "but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

So?

Cain never suggested that anyone belong to an state sponsored religion. (Religious test.)



No dummy, it isn't.

That second year of schooling sure would have helped you...

Your insults are cute...so tell me....how does Cain's comments NOT go against the "no religious test" clause in Article VI?

{The Test Act of 1673 in England obligated all persons filling any office, civil or military, to take oaths of supremacy and allegiance, to subscribe to a declaration against transubstantiation, and to receive the sacrament within three months of taking office.

The oath for the Test Act of 1673 was:

"I, N, do declare that I do believe that there is not any transubstantion in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or in the elements of the bread and wine, at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsovever."

In 1678 the act was extended thus:

"I, N, do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare, that I do believe that in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is not any Transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever: and that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other Saint, and the Sacrifice of the Mass, as they are now used in the Church of Rome, are superstitious and idolatrous..."

The necessity of receiving the sacrament as a qualification for office was abolished under George IV, and all acts requiring the taking of oaths and declarations against transubstantiation etc. were repealed by the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829.}

Religious test - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your ignorance is appalling.

DUMB ASS. I AM A LAWYER WHO WINS CASES BASED ON TITLE VII ALL THE TIME.
Translation: You don't know shit compared to me.

Where you have gone off the rails (translation: are totally incorrect) is that I'm not saying that Title VII is a religious test. This is about discrimination. Not hiring someone based on their religion is UNLAWFUL AND ACTIONABLE.

You're an idiot who doesnt know his ass from a hole in the wall. And your gobbledygook that you posted doesn't mean shit.

Go read up on discrimination law suits. Better yet, dont. Just leave the discussion.

If uncensored were ever in a position to hire and fire people....you'd probably be makings some new clients.

 

[Vanquish]

DUMB ASS. I AM A LAWYER WHO WINS CASES BASED ON TITLE VII ALL THE TIME.
Translation: You don't know shit compared to me.

ROFL

Yer just a legend in your own mind.

Where you have gone off the rails (translation: are totally incorrect) is that I'm not saying that Title VII is a religious test. This is about discrimination. Not hiring someone based on their religion is UNLAWFUL AND ACTIONABLE.

Appointment to the cabinet is not hiring. For a lawyer, you sure are ignorant of legal concepts.

Appointment to the cabinet is by design, based on ideological factors, you ignorant slut.

BTW, I am NOT a lawyer - nor do I pretend to be one on the internet.....

Is that a veiled jab that I'm not who I claim to be? I'd be more than happy to prove it, if that's your assertion.

I'm glad you don't claim to be one based on your poor knowledge of the law.

Yes, a cabinet appointment is a job. There's pay involved.

Cabinet officials receive an amount of pay determined by Title 5 of the United States Code. According to 5 U.S.C. § 5312, Cabinet level positions qualify for Level I pay, which amounts to $199,700. Some cabinet-level officials, including the Vice President and the White House Chief of Staff, have their salaries determined differently.

Citation

It must hurt to be pwnd so many times in one day.