Conservatives defend Herman Cain for saying communities can ban mosques; claim states' rights trump - Polidicks

Conservatives defend Herman Cain for saying communities can ban mosques;[URL="http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/kuligowski/110725"] claim states' rights trump freedom of religion[/URL] [quote]A common assumption is that a national right of freedom of religion is afforded by the U.S. Constitution. Regarding the Ground Zero mosque, how many times have we heard that [I]though the imam has the right to build it, maybe that wouldn't be the wisest decision?[/I] Speaking at the 2010 White House [URL="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/08/obamas-remarks-about-ground-ze.html"]iftar dinner[/URL], Barack Obama didn't comment on the wisdom, but on the supposed right: "But let me be clear. As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America. And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are. The writ of the Founders must endure." Now enter Herman Cain in 2011. Regarding another controversial mosque proposal, this one in Tennessee, Mr. Cain recently expressed his view to a news person that localities may ban mosques. Here's how the [URL="http://news.yahoo.com/us-republican-hopeful-backs-ban-mosques-183842282.html"]AFP reports[/URL] the story: "Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain on Sunday said US communities that want to ban mosques have a right to do so, as he backed opponents of a mosque being built in Tennessee. 'Islam is both a religion and a set of laws — Sharia laws. That's the difference between any one of our traditional religions where it's just about religious purposes,' Cain told Fox News Sunday. Asked whether a community, like the one in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, should be able to 'ban a mosque,' Cain replied: 'Yes, they have the right to do that.'" That's not a politically correct answer — but it's constitutionally correct. First, the [I]heretical[/I] statements and then, I'll explain: Contrary to what many believe, there is no federal right to freedom of religion. And, people do not have an automatic right to build mosques in Tennessee or any other state. Above, Mr. Obama says that Muslims have the right to build mosques "in accordance with local laws and ordinances." But, what if a state or local law were to prohibit the building of mosques? You can bet your bottom dollar that Obama would say that a federal right of religious freedom trumps the state law. But contrary to what Obama believes, the [URL="http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa45.htm"]writ of the Founders[/URL] was to prevent the federal government from exerting central control over the states in the ordinary affairs of life, including matters of religion. The [URL="http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights"]U.S. Constitution[/URL] was ratified with the assurance that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In context, the Constitution says what the federal government cannot do; it does not provide a nationwide right of religious freedom. The states are not prohibited by the Constitution from either establishing religion or prohibiting free exercise. In fact, during the period the individual states ratified the Constitution and the Bill of Rights most had their own official state religions. Many states endorsed the Christian religion well into the mid-20th century. In 1808, President Thomas Jefferson broke from his two predecessors and decided against issuing a national proclamation for religious exercise. Jefferson did so because of our federalism system of government created by the Constitution. Explaining his position by [URL="http://www.churchstatelaw.com/historicalmaterials/8_8_7.asp"]letter to Samuel Miller[/URL], Jefferson wrote that his decision "results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, or religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the US. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general [federal] government." Jefferson concludes his letter to Miller by noting the practice of his predecessors. But had they examined the issue of federal jurisdiction, they "would have discovered that what might be a right in a state government, was a violation of that right when assumed by another." The individual states have retained the power under the Constitution to regulate religion, including the right to ban mosques based on safety concerns or for that matter, for any reason. Just as some Muslim countries ban or regulate the building of churches, the individual states have retained sovereignty over such matters. Under the actual Constitution, one state may vote to ban all mosques while another may promote and fund mosques. In areas of retained sovereignty the states are subject only to their own constitutions. The federal government is powerless to ban or to establish or to interfere with the powers of the states. That's how the country was founded. It's called constitutional federalism. It's a system which allows for diversity among the states. Of course, the problem is that the First Amendment itself was amended, not by the legal process of a constitutional amendment, but by unilateral decree of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Religion Clause of the First Amendment, ratified by the states to control the power of the federal government is now used against the very states it was meant to protect. And, the federal government made itself the referee regarding what the states may and may not do. Legal commentary and court precedent was unanimous for approximately the first 150 years of our country's constitutional history on the fact that the Bill of Rights limits the power of the federal government, not the states. Then, in the early 20th century (1925), judicial activists on the Supreme Court got clever. Since the 14th Amendment (1868) controls the power of the states — in context of ending slavery and granting rights to the former slaves — why not use it against the states in ways never imagined? Never mind that the 14th Amendment does not mention the Bill of Rights and has nothing to do with applying them against the states. But, since the 14th speaks of "liberty" interests why not "incorporate" some of the restrictions on the federal government from the Bill of Rights into the 14th and apply them against the states? It was dishonest to the core — but, oh so brilliant. Because the Court did it mildly at first and incrementally, it got away with its crime against the Constitution. In short, that's how "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," morphed into, "Local school districts everywhere shall cease in their time-honored religious traditions and exercises." What is taking place via the illegal doctrine of "incorporation" is pure federal tyranny. So, did Herman Cain get it right? Probably not if you believe the U.S. Supreme Court has power to amend the Constitution without the amendment process. And, if you believe that central control over the states via turning the Bill of Rights on its head is valid, then Herman Cain is outrageously out of touch. But if you believe that we must set aside decades of illegal precedent and get back to the actual Constitution and the system that made America great, then, absolutely, the Hermanator nailed it. Note: Above, Mr. Cain bases his position on the view that Islam is not always practiced as a valid religion, not on the view that the current state of the law is an affront to the Constitution. © Monte Kuligowski[/quote] Meanwhile, Cain is[URL="http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/herman-cain-cancels-colbert-report-appearance.php"] skipping an interview with Stephen Colbert[/URL].

:colbert: He knows Stephen would rip him apart for faking the Colbert bump a few months back.

Does that mean that we can ban mormon churches? I fucking hope so.

[QUOTE=Nikota;31333938]Does that mean that we can ban mormon churches? I fucking hope so.[/QUOTE] As a non mormon living in Utah I disagree with that statement. [sp]...Because I don't wanna get killed when they find out[/sp]

do state rights trump everything it sounds like that's always the argument supposedly the civil war was about state rights but nobody really believes that

[QUOTE=Smug Bastard;31333957]As a non mormon living in Utah I disagree with that statement. [sp]...Because I don't wanna get killed when they find out[/sp][/QUOTE] Just buy a 1911 for self defence. They practically grow them there.

oh my god stop

[QUOTE=thisispain;31333982]do state rights trump everything it sounds like that's always the argument supposedly the civil war was about state rights but nobody really believes that[/QUOTE] Well it was about state's rights. Their right to decide whether or not citizens could own slaves.

If it was a Muslim that wanted to get rid of churches in the area, they would be crying that its unconstitutional, hypocrites.

[QUOTE=Nikota;31334034]Just buy a 1911 for self defence. They practically grow them there.[/QUOTE] I think coffee would be a better self defense weapon, it would be like Holy water in The Exorcist [img]http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-buddy.gif[/img]

"Oh no! The poor, poor, state! It's crying! Sure, it's an inanimate arbitrary piece of land, [i]but its rights are being infringed![/i] Fuck the first and fourteenth and all of those other amendments; state rights outweigh individual rights! Those muslims can just leave if they don't like it!" Can someone please, again, smack these people upside the head with a shovel?

How can anyone support individual rights alongside states rights, they do it so often but in reality the federal government protects individual rights by limiting the powers of states.

And if the situation was reversed, and someone wanted to prevent a church being built, they'd say that freedom of religion trumps states' rights. I'm Christian, but this is seriously getting both out of hand and ridiculous..

Conservatives pls go

It's funny how they go batshit insane over "defending" the constitution, but then shit like this happens. [img]http://www.facepunch.com/fp/emoot/colbert.gif[/img]

Can't stand conservatives.

Nope, state's rights don't trump the constitution (duh), and therefore freedom of religion. The constitution can in fact only be amended on the national level in fact, putting it beyond the reach of individual states, AKA any republican who thinks that this is possible has no idea how American politics actually work. Really the only thing that states have unquestioned jurisdiction over is things that the federal government isn't specifically told that it can do, and even then there's the "Necessary and Proper" clause has been used multiple times to get around that as well.

The Supreme Court is unable in any way shape or form "commit a crime to the constitution." They can, and I hope they certainly do, disagree with your political ideology, one of placing states rights above human rights. They are the ones that tell you what the constitution means. Sure you can read it, and infer what the founders would've wanted, and get into an interesting ideological discussion about it, but the Supreme Court is what tells us what the Constitution means. The Founder's supposed intent certainly can effect a ruling in a case, but that's for the judges to decide, not some two bit money grubbing millionaire that wants to try his hand at running a country instead of running a business.

Laws and rights laid out in the constitution trump state's laws, I'm pretty sure. Did these guys pass high school?

Herman Cain's political stances are as bad as his pizza, which tastes like sweaty asscrack.

[QUOTE=thisispain;31333982]do state rights trump everything it sounds like that's always the argument supposedly the civil war was about state rights but nobody really believes that[/QUOTE] State's rights was one of those arguments Democrats (who were the pro slavery party at the time for those of you who don't know) used to avoid having to say they were fighting for the right to own slaves. Even they knew it sounded horrible, and that's why they had a ton of arguments that made it seem like a necessary evil. States' rights is the only one that can be applied to modern politics as all of the others have either become irrelevant or would only appeal to neo-nazis.

I thought the secular context in the the governing system here stipulates the government isn't supposed to favor, integrate, nor interfere with religious institutions. At least not to the extent of banning places of worship. Edit: Just to make sure you know what I mean, the sourced article is from a group called "Renew America". Take a crack at where their political inclination is.

I read the title as "Conservatives defend Herman Cain for saying communities can ban Mosquitoes" What's wrong with that?

Ya know, the US is starting to turn into the US from Escape from New York.

Facepunchs defend J!NX for saying communities can ban conservatives; claim states' rights trump freedom of politics [sp]I hope you defend me at least![/sp]

I think Herman Cain would be a good leader coming from a non-political background, meaning that he has a more "down-to-earth" approach. However, his strong religious ideals worry me. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind if our President is religious or not, but he'd better not let his faith intervene in his judgment.

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;31339282]I think Herman Cain would be a good leader coming from a non-political background, meaning that he has a more "down-to-earth". However, his strong religious ideals worry me. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind if our President is religious or not, but he'd better not let his faith intervene in his judgment.[/QUOTE] Some of his political ideas are pretty retarded. Case in point: "I will only allow bills to be...3 pages!"

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31339311]Some of his political ideas are pretty retarded. Case in point: "I will only allow bills to be...3 pages!"[/QUOTE] Yeah but you'll always have retarded ideas with some people.

[QUOTE=thisispain;31333982]do state rights trump everything it sounds like that's always the argument supposedly the civil war was about state rights but nobody really believes that[/QUOTE] "think about states' rights!" seems like the usual cop out for conservatives/libertarians whether it's regarding gay marriage or other issues I'm fucking sick of hearing that excuse

[QUOTE=staticman;31333805]Conservatives defend Herman Cain for saying communities can ban mosques;[URL="http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/kuligowski/110725"] claim states' rights trump freedom of religion[/URL] Meanwhile, Cain is[URL="http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/herman-cain-cancels-colbert-report-appearance.php"] skipping an interview with Stephen Colbert[/URL].[/QUOTE] Holy shit. Anyone who argues against incorporation is a terrible person. I bet that moron didn't know the 2nd ammendment was incorporated as well. And that happened just last year with the city of Chicago. [editline]25th July 2011[/editline] Take your pick bitch. Banning mosques or the right to bear arms.