Jeff Flake thinks that Republicans need to speak out against Roy Moore's idea of a religious test for public office. Republicans certainly can do what they want; I certainly oppose religious tests for public office. But why would anyone think that it was important to speak out against it? The prohibition of such tests is actually in the Constitution.
Thus, no amount of talk from a presumed Senator Moore is going to add a religious test for public office unless he can persuade enough people to amend the Constitution. If he can do that, then the test would presumably be legitimate. But he can't, of course; you probably couldn't get 75% support for the idea in Alabama, let alone 75% support from the several states.
Rather than raising the profile of the issue, I would simply dismiss it as silly if asked about it and not speak to it if not.
4 comments:
Since Senators like Schumer and Durbin and Feinstein already are disregarding the Constitution and trying to impose religious tests on fitness for running a business and for holding public office, I think it's entirely appropriate for guys like Flake and Sasse to object to Moore's apparent effort to add to that cacophony.
This is part of what I've been bellyaching about for some time: the Constitution and its prohibitions mean nothing without folks in government who actually are interested in upholding it, and saying so loudly as well as actually doing so.
And while the Constitution is silent on what constitutes fitness to run a business in particular, it gets at it pretty clearly in the various of the Bill of Rights.
Eric Hines
I can understand saying plainly that the Constitution forbids it, and thus that it is not in the realm of possible agendas for those lacking Article V mandates.
Reading Moore's article (on, good grief, WND- doesn't help his case) it's laid out pretty calmly and rationally- and I suppose that's unsurprising since he was, after all, a state Supreme Court justice- outrageous as he's been otherwise. Now one may have issues with his argument, but it appears that he isn't making a religious test argument per se, but rather identifies Islam as being both a religious belief system and a legal system. So he's pinning his argument on a conflict of legal statute allegiances.
I'd actually be interested in reading a serious rebuttal to his argument, but I doubt I'll find one out there.
What aO made, he can unmake. The US wasn't entirely the result of human efforts.
That's why when the humans rebel, the Constitution cannot stop them. It was always a test, to see how many people turn against the principles of the Gospel.
Post a Comment