Carson says Muslims believe their religion is very much a part of their public life.
And… he’s different from them HOW?
It absolutely is completely possible. I’ve known many very high achieving law students (Ivy league and not) who excel in the school environment but do not have a lick of common sense or the ability to function as a lawyer outside of the strict constraints of school. Law school is a fast start game…if you can score well in the first semester or two, your place in the class is almost virtually locked. Don’t put too much credence in his class ranking vs. actual intelligence. I did very well in law school and it was because I started my first two semesters stronger and faster than others. There is some skill in that, don’t get me wrong, but it’s not completely about academic merit. Even lawyers who have significantly more natural talent graduated behind me simply because of the luck of the start.
That said, my point was that he is only randomly a constitutionalist. He has demonstrated complete disregard for the powers the Constitution gives to the three branches. So he only applies the proper definition when it suits him to do so.
Like many commenters on the previous threads about Carson’s little no-Muslim-Prez tirade, Cruz frames the issue as a constitutional one, reminding us that, constitutionally, you can’t bar anyone from running for or serving as President based on their religion.
But technically, that’s not the argument (if you can call it that) that Carson seemed to be trying to make. He wasn’t saying Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to run for president, he was saying people shouldn’t vote for one. Which is, of course, blatant religious bigotry.
But, disgusting as it is, there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent a Presidential candidate – or anyone else – from urging Americans to vote for or against someone because of their religion, or for that matter because of their skin color, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic background, or anything else.
The real problem with Carson saying that a Muslim ought not be elected be president is bigotry, not unconstitutionality.
And of course I agree with everyone pointing out Carson’s hypocrisy in supporting the increasingly theocratic Republican Party, which is all in favor of electing someone who will impose their religious beliefs on the rest of the country – as long as it’s their religious beliefs.
Meanwhile, the chance of a Muslim president of the U.S. trying to to impose Sharia Law on Americans is astronomically low, and the chance of success in doing so is basically zero. For the foreseeable future, and probably far beyond, the biggest risk to our constitutionally guaranteed freedom of (and from) religion, and the separation of church and state in America, is not a theocratic Muslim POTUS, it’s a theocratic Christian POTUS.
Wow. Carnival gets something right for once. Whoda thunk it?