Skip to main content

Constitutionalist Ben Carson confused about the Constitution

Self-described Constitutionalist Ben Carson appears to have trouble understanding the Constitution. On Sunday's Meet the Press, Carson got into the following back-and-forth with host Chuck Todd:

Chuck Todd: "Should a President's faith matter?"

Ben Carson: "Well, I guess it depends on what that faith is. If it's inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter. But if it fits within the realm of America and consistent with the Constitution, no problem."

Todd: "So do you believe that Islam is consistent with the Constitution?"

Carson: "No, I don't, I do not. I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that."

In case Mr. Carson forgot, the First Amendment says this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

 So, in other words, according to the Constitution, it's legal and consistent with American principles and values for people to believe in and practice the religion of their choosing. Ironically enough, Carson recently defended Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis for refusing to do her job and hand out marriage licenses to same-sex couples due to her religious beliefs, yet he doesn't believe a Muslim should ever be elected to the Oval Office because Islam is apparently not consistent with the values and principles of this country. Fascinating...

Based on these two positions, Mr. Carson is essentially saying this: "I support Kim Davis' First Amendment rights, but don't feel this way about gays and Muslims, because of the Constitution" and "While I'm a strong believer in freedom and equality, I still don't believe gays and Muslims deserve equality,"

Ben Carson's statements and positions are doubly ironic because he happens to be a black man. Before the signing of the Civil Rights Act, some businesses refused service to African-Americans due to their religious beliefs. What would Carson have said then? "I support these businesses' First Amendment rights; I just don't support my own."? I don't think so... Supposed Constitutionalist Ben Carson should probably read the book The Constitution for Dummies prior to making another statement about the subject. He may be an expert when it comes to operating on brains, but when it comes to the Constitution, he appears to be a novice.

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/21/9362989/ben-carson-muslims-constitution

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun
2 comments
Read more

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i
Post a Comment
Read more

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"
Post a Comment
Read more