Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Willhaft
Article VITo hold a public office, whether it’s state or a federal form of government and to which the discussion of this thread is about, those are the requirements when you take a political position of representation
"All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
I didn’t suggest a religious test dumbass! That’s the problem with the left, you give them basic FACTS and they try to cry some form of racism. Ever hear of an politician take an oath of office or is this sudden news to you?
Opposition to a Muslim, or any other religious person, merely because of their religion, is a religious test.
I never said opposition in my post did I ? . Nor did I State ANY RELIGION or non religion preference. Again we have a liberal who can’t see anything beyond race or religion. So if I State that to be an elected representative you have to take an oath of office to defend the Constitution, it’s laws and system of government, that somehow WillHaftawaite believes the oath, what that oath means, AND the Constitution itself is now a religious test.
Bravo!! What else do you want to try and imply regarding the facts I previously stated in my last post?
Did you forget what the title of the thread is?
What the majority of the posts have been about?
If you don't want a (generic) Muslim in office, the only reason would be his religion.
Of this I am well aware. It changes nothing at all of what said. The system is - wrong.They wouldn't. The one with the most votes, nationally, wins. That's democracy right, majority rule? If the EC gets to pick who they want, and they do, you might as well just say well, American citizen, you don't get to vote for the President since, you don't.I understand how the EC is undemocratic perfectly, That's why it should never have been created. There's no reason for a popular vote for President here since that's not how it's decided.That's utter horseshit and not a single person on earth can prove such a thing. Trump lost the popular vote, cuck.
Oh, were you one of those dems that didn't know how elections are done in this country? Despite the Bush vs Gore issue?
Wow. That most have been VERY embarrassing for you.
Err, then how would the state outcomes be decided?
The Founders were very much against straight Democracy. OUr system is all about limiting the dangers of mob rule.
Egypt, Turkey, Lebanon, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Afghanistan, Iraq ....Name one Muslim democracy.
Now how did I miss those paradises on Earth?
They are already banned (by the Constitution) Article 6, Section 2, Part 1) It just has never been enforced.Our President would just as soon ban them from the country
There is no Article 6, Section 2, part 1.
Are you sure you are talking about our Constitution?
Of this I am well aware. It changes nothing at all of what said. The system is - wrong.They wouldn't. The one with the most votes, nationally, wins. That's democracy right, majority rule? If the EC gets to pick who they want, and they do, you might as well just say well, American citizen, you don't get to vote for the President since, you don't.I understand how the EC is undemocratic perfectly, That's why it should never have been created. There's no reason for a popular vote for President here since that's not how it's decided.Oh, were you one of those dems that didn't know how elections are done in this country? Despite the Bush vs Gore issue?
Wow. That most have been VERY embarrassing for you.
Err, then how would the state outcomes be decided?
The Founders were very much against straight Democracy. OUr system is all about limiting the dangers of mob rule.
Trump just made it harder for farmers to fight big AG and consumers to fight with the credit card companies. And his tax plan gives even more money to the very wealthy. You were saying?No. Most Americans voted against Trump. He was always going to win the morons in the flyover.Comey, and the EC, cost Clinton the election. Don't go there.The one thing is know to be true is absolutely fucking nothing has been fully exposed. Most of America doesn't even know WTH anyone is talking about yet.
Fact;
Oh, and DailyBeast, a leftist website, is reporting that Cambridge CEO Alexander Nix is the subject of the indictment to be handed down. This amounts to yet another nothing burger for either side.
- Hillary Clinton paid to have a fake "dossier" created to slander and libel Trump in hopes of altering the election in her favor.
- James Comey colluded with Russian agents including using taxpayer funds to help the Clinton campaign in this act
- Mueller has a massive conflict of interest in the affair
The insane like Timmy and deantard were dreaming that Trump would be indicted.
The average forum Stalinists were hoping Manafort would be indicted
The normals, those who elected Trump were hoping John Podesta would be indicted
Nix is a meaningless indictment. While Mueller would like to crush free speech, there is nothing even remotely illegal about a private citizen urging Assange to release emails from the corrupt Stalinist democrats. No court in the nation will even hear the case.
Looks like Mueller is engaging in a stalling tactic to try and keep the heat off of the corrupt dims during the Sunday political shows.
If it is indeed Nix, no one gains anything from this.
Trump having a message that spoke up for Middle America, cost Clinton the election.
Your Lefty contempt for Middle American certainly figured into Trump's plan to make a play for them.
It is the exact opposite of moronic to vote for the person who, for the first time in generations, wants to enact polices designed to serve your interests.
I remember growing up in the Rust Belt. I've lived in it my whole life. I never though that these generations long union voters would flip to the GOP.
But Trump spoke for them and they heard him, despite the din of lies from people like you trying to drown him out.
Willhaft
Article VI
"All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
I didn’t suggest a religious test dumbass! That’s the problem with the left, you give them basic FACTS and they try to cry some form of racism. Ever hear of an politician take an oath of office or is this sudden news to you?
Opposition to a Muslim, or any other religious person, merely because of their religion, is a religious test.
I never said opposition in my post did I ? . Nor did I State ANY RELIGION or non religion preference. Again we have a liberal who can’t see anything beyond race or religion. So if I State that to be an elected representative you have to take an oath of office to defend the Constitution, it’s laws and system of government, that somehow WillHaftawaite believes the oath, what that oath means, AND the Constitution itself is now a religious test.
Bravo!! What else do you want to try and imply regarding the facts I previously stated in my last post?
Did you forget what the title of the thread is?
What the majority of the posts have been about?
If you don't want a (generic) Muslim in office, the only reason would be his religion.
Did you forget that part of my initial response where I stated why I don’t see a problem? I know it was clearly in black and white, but again all you see is racism so ... no surprise that you can’t read without already formulating your ideological opinion.
Typical of the left.
Article VIMany here not born here serve and defend the Constitution. That is nativist dogmatism.If a Muslim is elected to public office, do Republicans feel they should be allowed to server or should they be banned?
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Those who take upon themselves and be awarded with a public office must take an oath to uphold, to defend, the United States Constitution. Obviously, to be president, they must be born of this nation. In following these two set rules, they must refrain from any foreign culture influence and interest that contradicts with the oath to preserve and protect our Constitutional system of government. We have an established system that all cultures and religions must assimilate to, not a system that must bow and assimilate to your own set of values you once held in your country or region of origin. If they respect and uphold to that understanding regarding our nation’s government, I don’t see a problem.
To hold a public office, whether it’s state or a federal form of government and to which the discussion of this thread is about, those are the requirements when you take a political position of representation
"All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
I didn’t suggest a religious test dumbass! That’s the problem with the left, you give them basic FACTS and they try to cry some form of racism. Ever hear of an politician take an oath of office or is this sudden news to you?
Trump just made it harder for farmers to fight big AG and consumers to fight with the credit card companies. And his tax plan gives even more money to the very wealthy. You were saying?No. Most Americans voted against Trump. He was always going to win the morons in the flyover.Comey, and the EC, cost Clinton the election. Don't go there.Fact;
Oh, and DailyBeast, a leftist website, is reporting that Cambridge CEO Alexander Nix is the subject of the indictment to be handed down. This amounts to yet another nothing burger for either side.
- Hillary Clinton paid to have a fake "dossier" created to slander and libel Trump in hopes of altering the election in her favor.
- James Comey colluded with Russian agents including using taxpayer funds to help the Clinton campaign in this act
- Mueller has a massive conflict of interest in the affair
The insane like Timmy and deantard were dreaming that Trump would be indicted.
The average forum Stalinists were hoping Manafort would be indicted
The normals, those who elected Trump were hoping John Podesta would be indicted
Nix is a meaningless indictment. While Mueller would like to crush free speech, there is nothing even remotely illegal about a private citizen urging Assange to release emails from the corrupt Stalinist democrats. No court in the nation will even hear the case.
Looks like Mueller is engaging in a stalling tactic to try and keep the heat off of the corrupt dims during the Sunday political shows.
If it is indeed Nix, no one gains anything from this.
Trump having a message that spoke up for Middle America, cost Clinton the election.
Your Lefty contempt for Middle American certainly figured into Trump's plan to make a play for them.
It is the exact opposite of moronic to vote for the person who, for the first time in generations, wants to enact polices designed to serve your interests.
I remember growing up in the Rust Belt. I've lived in it my whole life. I never though that these generations long union voters would flip to the GOP.
But Trump spoke for them and they heard him, despite the din of lies from people like you trying to drown him out.
Tell that to the Christion DominionistsIf a Muslim is elected to public office, do Republicans feel they should be allowed to server or should they be banned?
Those who take upon themselves and be awarded with a public office must take an oath to uphold, to defend, the United States Constitution. Obviously, to be president, they must be born of this nation. In following these two set rules, they must refrain from any foreign culture influence and interest that contradicts with the oath to preserve and protect our Constitutional system of government. We have an established system that all cultures and religions must assimilate to, not a system that must bow and assimilate to your own set of values you once held in your country or region of origin. If they respect and uphold to that understanding regarding our nation’s government, I don’t see a problem.
I seem to remember part of the Constitution being about "supreme law of the land" That makes Islam unconstitutional (illegal)
Sorry! Wrong answer. Thank you for playing! Johnny, tell us about our nice parting gifts for our contestants!
What legal Constitutional argument can you provide in a link, that says Sharia Law can coexist separately from our judicial rule of law under the Constitution?
Let me challenge the basis of your argument and see how well you can back it up. Links please.
You obviously do not know what Sharia Law is. I suggest educating yourself first.
On the contrary, and a great dodge of actually backing your answer by the way. Having trouble?
How can I prove something does not exist? If you think you can, you are an idiot.
Why don't you cite the part of the Constitution where it says a Muslim cannot hold office? No one has done that, except to quote the wrong parts and reveal their ignorance.
CA tried to ban gay marriage and just look at that now you have gay marriage thanks to, the Supreme Court.Of this I am well aware. It changes nothing at all of what said. The system is - wrong.They wouldn't. The one with the most votes, nationally, wins. That's democracy right, majority rule? If the EC gets to pick who they want, and they do, you might as well just say well, American citizen, you don't get to vote for the President since, you don't.I understand how the EC is undemocratic perfectly, That's why it should never have been created. There's no reason for a popular vote for President here since that's not how it's decided.
Err, then how would the state outcomes be decided?
The Founders were very much against straight Democracy. OUr system is all about limiting the dangers of mob rule.
When I look at the cess pit that you lefties have made of California?
I would rather fight than be ruled by such.
Any religion (or none) can hold office here. If you don't like that then more to Iran. They are your kind of folks.Sorry! Wrong answer. Thank you for playing! Johnny, tell us about our nice parting gifts for our contestants!
What legal Constitutional argument can you provide in a link, that says Sharia Law can coexist separately from our judicial rule of law under the Constitution?
Let me challenge the basis of your argument and see how well you can back it up. Links please.
You obviously do not know what Sharia Law is. I suggest educating yourself first.
On the contrary, and a great dodge of actually backing your answer by the way. Having trouble?
How can I prove something does not exist? If you think you can, you are an idiot.
Why don't you cite the part of the Constitution where it says a Muslim cannot hold office? No one has done that, except to quote the wrong parts and reveal their ignorance.
A Muslim can not hold office if Americans do not want muslims to hold office and vote against them.
I think that’s just about the best idea...second only to stopping the importation of muslims.
CA tried to ban gay marriage and just look at that now you have gay marriage thanks to, the Supreme Court.Of this I am well aware. It changes nothing at all of what said. The system is - wrong.They wouldn't. The one with the most votes, nationally, wins. That's democracy right, majority rule? If the EC gets to pick who they want, and they do, you might as well just say well, American citizen, you don't get to vote for the President since, you don't.Err, then how would the state outcomes be decided?
The Founders were very much against straight Democracy. OUr system is all about limiting the dangers of mob rule.
When I look at the cess pit that you lefties have made of California?
I would rather fight than be ruled by such.
Willhaft
I didn’t suggest a religious test dumbass! That’s the problem with the left, you give them basic FACTS and they try to cry some form of racism. Ever hear of an politician take an oath of office or is this sudden news to you?
Opposition to a Muslim, or any other religious person, merely because of their religion, is a religious test.
I never said opposition in my post did I ? . Nor did I State ANY RELIGION or non religion preference. Again we have a liberal who can’t see anything beyond race or religion. So if I State that to be an elected representative you have to take an oath of office to defend the Constitution, it’s laws and system of government, that somehow WillHaftawaite believes the oath, what that oath means, AND the Constitution itself is now a religious test.
Bravo!! What else do you want to try and imply regarding the facts I previously stated in my last post?
Did you forget what the title of the thread is?
What the majority of the posts have been about?
If you don't want a (generic) Muslim in office, the only reason would be his religion.
Did you forget that part of my initial response where I stated why I don’t see a problem? I know it was clearly in black and white, but again all you see is racism so ... no surprise that you can’t read without already formulating your ideological opinion.
Typical of the left.
amusing
another moron that thinks I'm a member of the Left...
The very opposite. They voted against their best interests, as usual. That's what fucking stupid people do, usually.Trump just made it harder for farmers to fight big AG and consumers to fight with the credit card companies. And his tax plan gives even more money to the very wealthy. You were saying?No. Most Americans voted against Trump. He was always going to win the morons in the flyover.Comey, and the EC, cost Clinton the election. Don't go there.
Trump having a message that spoke up for Middle America, cost Clinton the election.
Your Lefty contempt for Middle American certainly figured into Trump's plan to make a play for them.
It is the exact opposite of moronic to vote for the person who, for the first time in generations, wants to enact polices designed to serve your interests.
I remember growing up in the Rust Belt. I've lived in it my whole life. I never though that these generations long union voters would flip to the GOP.
But Trump spoke for them and they heard him, despite the din of lies from people like you trying to drown him out.
So, you're dropping your claim that it was moronic of voters in "flyover" to vote in for him in the election?
Egypt, Turkey, Lebanon, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Afghanistan, Iraq ....Name one Muslim democracy.
Now how did I miss those paradises on Earth?
You said name one. There was no other requirement. Remember, you asked and it was answered.
The seventh largest economy in the world is a cess pit? Try again, ditch digger.CA tried to ban gay marriage and just look at that now you have gay marriage thanks to, the Supreme Court.Of this I am well aware. It changes nothing at all of what said. The system is - wrong.They wouldn't. The one with the most votes, nationally, wins. That's democracy right, majority rule? If the EC gets to pick who they want, and they do, you might as well just say well, American citizen, you don't get to vote for the President since, you don't.
The Founders were very much against straight Democracy. OUr system is all about limiting the dangers of mob rule.
When I look at the cess pit that you lefties have made of California?
I would rather fight than be ruled by such.
Would be relevant if I had said anything like, "California is the only problem in America".
As I didn't, it is not.
My point stands.
When I look at the cess pit that you lefties have made of California?
I would rather fight than be ruled by such.[
I seem to remember part of the Constitution being about "no religious test".
I seem to remember part of the Constitution being about "supreme law of the land" That makes Islam unconstitutional (illegal)
Sorry! Wrong answer. Thank you for playing! Johnny, tell us about our nice parting gifts for our contestants!
What legal Constitutional argument can you provide in a link, that says Sharia Law can coexist separately from our judicial rule of law under the Constitution?
Let me challenge the basis of your argument and see how well you can back it up. Links please.
You obviously do not know what Sharia Law is. I suggest educating yourself first.
On the contrary, and a great dodge of actually backing your answer by the way. Having trouble?
The very opposite. They voted against their best interests, as usual. That's what fucking stupid people do, usually.Trump just made it harder for farmers to fight big AG and consumers to fight with the credit card companies. And his tax plan gives even more money to the very wealthy. You were saying?No. Most Americans voted against Trump. He was always going to win the morons in the flyover.Trump having a message that spoke up for Middle America, cost Clinton the election.
Your Lefty contempt for Middle American certainly figured into Trump's plan to make a play for them.
It is the exact opposite of moronic to vote for the person who, for the first time in generations, wants to enact polices designed to serve your interests.
I remember growing up in the Rust Belt. I've lived in it my whole life. I never though that these generations long union voters would flip to the GOP.
But Trump spoke for them and they heard him, despite the din of lies from people like you trying to drown him out.
So, you're dropping your claim that it was moronic of voters in "flyover" to vote in for him in the election?
