Well, at least Keyes doesn't make the same mistake that Romney, Lds "apostle" Dallas Oaks, Evangelical Romney campaigner Mark DeMoss, and a host of FREEPERS makes about Article VI of the Constitution. At least Keyes recognizes it applies to the U.S. government -- and not voters!
The others all twist and mangle the Constitution to say what they want it to say.
Still, and I'll need to recheck the Constitution, I don't think the words Keyes uses here -- "public trust" -- are in there. That was probably Keyes' extrapolation.
And why isn't Keyes also going after Romney, who declared in 2007 that he wouldn't have a Muslim on his Cabinet?
Uh... Cain's comments are fresh news? Cain pretends to be a capable conservative?
Romney said something different.
Cain's candidacy is as much a failure as Newt's. We're back to Cain proposing a specifically unconstitutional religious test applied to Muslims. When he launched his campaign, he said we need to re-read the Constitution and proceeded to quote the Declaration instead.
Despite a high profile appearance by Netanyahu and two-day news cycle which discussed a Palestinian Right of Return, he had no clue what it was when asked. He's a serious light weight. He's a gaffe machine and his presence is looking like a net negative to the nomination process.
Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
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, any Thing 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.
“But the Constitution explicitly prohibits officials of the U.S. government from applying religion as a criterion for public trust, whatever their individual inclinations...”
Very well.
But I proffer that, at the time the Constitution was reasoned and written, that those who insisted on a clause barring any “religious tests” did so because they believed that only Christians and perhaps Jews would ever fall under such a test.
I further proffer that not a single delegate to the Constitutional convention ever once believed or imagined that, someday, Islamics would stand to hold government positions under their newly-created Constitution.
To them, this would have seemed unfathomable.
Thus, from their limited perspective, they endeavored to create a document and a government that would pertain solely to Christians and Jews.
But the Constitution’s views and dictates of religious freedom are destined to fail us in a multicultural environment in which a new and definitely foreign culture in our midst will use the protections of that document to gain power and to subvert and perhaps ultimately destroy us.
We MUST begin to apply “a religious test” insofar as it may determine loyalty to the basic foundations of freedom that The West represents and cherishes.
If you disagree with what I’ve written, do you also disagree that ISLAM, in EVERY facet of that religion, also applies “a religious test” to everyone in its domain?
Whether you view Islam simply “as a religion”, or see it for what I believe it to be — a totalitarian political system cloaked behind a “burqha of religion” — it is Islam that is our nemesis.
It does not warrant the protection of the United States Constitution.
Not if that Constitution is to survive, that is.
Just sayin’….