We need to nominate, then elect Herman Cain!

charver said:
He was still leading in the polls though.

If you want to go with polling now then you do that. Those people who liked the person leading the polls last month can go with that candidate. Hasn't every candidate got a poll they can point to as proving that it is them, above all others, who is going to be the big winner?

Anyway, get back to me when Cains in being sworn in, SM.
Click to expand...

Here's the difference, Fred Thompson had been talked about for several years. Everyone knew him because of his acting career. He had high name recognition and high expectation, and once he entered the race, began a downhill slide only rivaled by Newt this year. Contrast this with Cain, who no one had heard of two years ago, and who has come out of nowhere, steadily climbing in the polls. Totally opposite Thompson's track.
 
Jarod said:
Dixie, the United States Constitution says differently, it says he cannot use a Religous test, and thats exactly what Cain said he would do. If the president says, "I will not appoint a Christian, Muslim or any other religen to offices in the United States", he is violating the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Show me where the Constitution says that. Thanks.
 
Dixie said:
Right... Which is why I stated the example, that IF the president had appointed a Muslim to a cabinet position, and Congress, during confirmation, rejected the nominee on the basis he was Muslim, that would be a violation of Article 6. But the initial choice can be made by the president using whatever criteria he sees fit, and that's part of the responsibility delegated to the president in the Constitution. You have to literally distort the intent and meaning of Article 6 to get it to fit the way Jughead wants it to apply.

How many times do you think Joe Lieberman may have been passed over for a VP selection, because he is Jewish? How about if Romney fails to win the nomination, and whoever does win, doesn't pick Romney to be the VP because he is Mormon? You know... this stuff happens all the time, in every election, with virtually every "pick" that someone has to make... everything factors in, and there is no way to enforce Jughead's interpretation of Article 6, because who the hell knows why someone picks or doesn't pick a certain person? Only the picker knows for sure, it is their pick, and other than what they might reveal publicly, we can't really know why they pick who they pick. To suggest this has to be adherent to some guideline, is retarded. It's up to the president to pick who he likes, and
Congress can confirm or reject them. Period.
Click to expand...

False, if the President uses a religous test he is violating the U.S. Constitution. Even Republican presidents are under the jurisdiction of the Constitution and they take an oath to uphold it. Now, if you argued that it would be impossable to enforce because the president is not going to come out and say, "I would have picked Mohemed for Secretary of State but for the fact that he is Muslim" I might agree with you. But in theory, if you could prove that the sole reason was due to religen, you could prove that the president violated the Constitution.

Just because it is not proveable or enforceable does not make it Constitutional, and Cain said that he would use a religous test when determining who to appoint to offices. He said he would violate the Constitution.
 
Alias said:
Show me where the Constitution says that. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Ugh, how many times do I have to show Article 6.

"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Cain said he would use a religous test as a qualification to any cabinent position or judicial appointment if he were president.
 
DamnYankee said:
Again, its not a valid comparison at all. Fred was popular because he was well-known and a straight talker. He eventually got in because of the popularity, but never ran an effective campaign. Cain was a nobody until we saw him debate with the establishment, and he gets more popular the more we see him. He got in early and has been building an effective campaign ever since. Fred was aloof and non-specific on issues; Cain is direct and has specific proposals like the 999 Plan.

Stick with what you do best, the irreverent bottom-of-the-beer-mug remarks. Save the political analysis for the grown-ups. :)
Click to expand...

The 'point' wasn't to compare Cains and Thompsons, more to reflect on the pointlessness of citing polls at this stage of the electoral cycle.

You're hard work sometimes, SM.
 
Jarod said:
Dixie, the United States Constitution says differently, it says he cannot use a Religous test, and thats exactly what Cain said he would do. If the president says, "I will not appoint a Christian, Muslim or any other religen to offices in the United States", he is violating the Constitution.
Click to expand...

No, the Constitution says a religious test shall not be required to hold public office, and Cain never said there would be a religious test to hold public office. He said he would be uncomfortable appointing a Muslim to his cabinet. Presidential appointments are made at the discretion of the president, and he can make those appointments based on anything he pleases.
 
Jarod said:
Ugh, how many times do I have to show Article 6.

"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Cain said he would use a religous test as a qualification to any cabinent position or judicial appointment if he were president.
Click to expand...

Islam teaches muslims that Islam is the supreme law of the land. Their own religion tells us that they are loyal to the Quran and those who interpret it over the US Constitution.

Are you okay with Sharia Law in the USA?
 
Let me throw a hypothetical out there... Let's say Obama (because Cain wouldn't) appoints a towel-wearing full blown radical Muslim to Attorney General (to replace Holder when he resigns). This person has been very vocal that he believes in Sharia law and believes it trumps and supersedes Constitutional law. Those are his stated public views and everyone know it. Can Congress reject his nomination on the basis of his religious beliefs, or not?

I think they can.
 
Dixie said:
No, the Constitution says a religious test shall not be required to hold public office, and Cain never said there would be a religious test to hold public office. He said he would be uncomfortable appointing a Muslim to his cabinet. Presidential appointments are made at the discretion of the president, and he can make those appointments based on anything he pleases.
Click to expand...

He said he would not do it. The President cannot make appointments based on things banned by the U.S. Constitution. I know you Conservatives hate the Constitution, bUt as inconvient as it is for you, its still the Consitutiotn.
 
Last edited:
Alias said:
Islam teaches muslims that Islam is the supreme law of the land. Their own religion tells us that they are loyal to the Quran and those who interpret it over the US Constitution.

Are you okay with Sharia Law in the USA?
Click to expand...

Christ instructed his disciples to "spread the gospel". Nowhere did he ever say to beat people up with it. I'm more afraid of Christian zealots than Islamic radicals.
 
Jarod said:
He said he would not do it. The President cannot make appointments based on things banned by the U.S. Constitution. I know you Conservatives hate the Constitution, bit as inconvient as it is for you, its still the Consitutiotn.
Click to expand...

That's not true. We don't like the Constitution being used and manipulated to support the left's agenda. You know that as well as I do. Don't twist things.
 
Dixie said:
Let me throw a hypothetical out there... Let's say Obama (because Cain wouldn't) appoints a towel-wearing full blown radical Muslim to Attorney General (to replace Holder when he resigns). This person has been very vocal that he believes in Sharia law and believes it trumps and supersedes Constitutional law. Those are his stated public views and everyone know it. Can Congress reject his nomination on the basis of his religious beliefs, or not?

I think they can.
Click to expand...

Let me throw a hypothetical out there. Let's say some Congressman (or woman) is a bona fide, dyed-in the wool racist and bigot. Do you think that his or her viewpoint would ever make it into law, or influence (in a significant way) the outcome of a vote? People are free and can believe whatever.
 
poet said:
Christ instructed his disciples to "spread the gospel". Nowhere did he ever say to beat people up with it. I'm more afraid of Christian zealots than Islamic radicals.
Click to expand...

The problem in this world isn't the Christian zealots. The problem in this world is Islamist religious thugs who are not only beating people up, but murdering people who don't believe what they want them to believe. You're very sick.
 
charver said:
The 'point' wasn't to compare Cains and Thompsons, more to reflect on the pointlessness of citing polls at this stage of the electoral cycle.

You're hard work sometimes, SM.
Click to expand...
Everything for you is hard work, I suspect.

It's not a poll, but the trends in the polls. Cain's been rising since his first debate.
 
Jarod said:
He said he would not do it. The President cannot make appointments based on things banned by the U.S. Constitution. I know you Conservatives hate the Constitution, bit as inconvient as it is for you, its still the Consitutiotn.
Click to expand...

Yes he can, he is not hiring from a pool of candidates! He is making an APPOINTMENT and this is different, Jughead. He can base his decision on any damn thing he wants to, and unless he specifically comes out and tells you, there is no way to say why he made his choice. You are really way out in left field with your understanding of Article 6, it does not apply to presidential appointments.
 
poet said:
Let me throw a hypothetical out there. Let's say some Congressman (or woman) is a bona fide, dyed-in the wool racist and bigot. Do you think that his or her viewpoint would ever make it into law, or influence (in a significant way) the outcome of a vote? People are free and can believe whatever.
Click to expand...

I believe Robert Byrd authored quite a bit of legislation in his career.
 
Dixie said:
Let me throw a hypothetical out there... Let's say (President) [sic]Obama (because Cain wouldn't) appoints a towel-wearing full blown radical Muslim to Attorney General (to replace Holder when he resigns). This person has been very vocal that he believes in Sharia law and believes it trumps and supersedes Constitutional law. Those are his stated public views and everyone know it. Can Congress reject his nomination on the basis of his religious beliefs, or not?

I think they can.
Click to expand...

Ill play along with your hypothetical, if President Obama nominated such a person (even though he wouln't) Congress could reject that person because he belives that Sharia law supersedes the Constitution, but not because the person was a Muslim. I dont know why you cant get it into your head, its the Religen you cant prevent someone from holding office due to, not the specific policy belifes.

If you said, I wont nominate Catholics because of there Pro-Life Belifes you would be violating the Constitution. If you said I won't nominate John F. Kennedy because he is Pro-Life that would not be violating the Constitution.

BTW, John F. Kennedy was Catholic and Pro-Choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top