Skip to main content

21 replies

CAIR Wants Ben Carson to Withdraw from Presidential Race Over Islam Remarks

BestworkingBestworkingOld Faithful

I want cair to withdraw from the USA.

http://cnsnews.com/news/articl...n-over-islam-remarks

 

 

(CNSNews.com) – The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) plans to call Monday for Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson to withdraw from the 2016 campaign after the retired neurosurgeon said Islam was not consistent with the U.S. Constitution and that he would “absolutely not” advocate having a Muslim in the White House.

“Mr. Carson clearly does not understand or care about the Constitution, which states that ‘no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office,’” said CAIR national executive director Nihad Awad.

“We call on our nation’s political leaders – across the political spectrum – to repudiate these unconstitutional and un-American statements and for Mr. Carson to withdraw from the presidential race.”

CAIR has scheduled a press conference at its DC offices on Capitol Hill on Monday morning, to call on Carson to end his campaign.

Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, Carson was asked his views on the faith of an American president.

“Should a president’s faith matter – should your faith matter to voters?” asked host Chuck Todd.

“Well, I guess it depends on what that faith is,” replied Carson. “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.”

“So do you believe that Islam is consistent with the Constitution?” Todd asked.

“No, I don’t. I do not,” said Carson, adding, “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.”

Todd went on to ask whether Carson would consider voting for a Muslim running for Congress, and said “it depends on who that Muslim is and what their policies are, just as it depends on what anybody else says, you know.”

Todd also asked whether Carson believes Obama is a Christian.

“I believe that he is,” he said. “I have no reason to doubt what he says.”

Trump: ‘I don’t talk about people’s faith’

Earlier in the program, Todd asked GOP campaign frontrunner Donald Trump whether he would be comfortable if a Muslim was ever elected president.

“It’s something that at some point could happen. We’ll see,” Trump said. “You know, it’s something that could happen. Would I be comfortable? I don’t know if we have to address it right now. But I think it is certainly something that could happen.”

Todd also asked Trump about Obama’s faith and birthplace.

“Why won’t you concede that the president is a Christian and that the president was born in the United States?” he asked.

“Because I don't talk about people’s faith,” Trump said. “Now in all fairness, he said he was a Christian and he said he is a Christian. He attended the church of Reverend [Jeremiah] Wright. And so, you know, I’m willing to take him at his word for that. I have no problem with that.”

Trump declined to talk about the controversy over Obama’s birth certificate, calling it “a long, complex subject that I just don’t like talking about, and I won’t talk about it.”

The White House released Obama’s long-form birth certificate in 2011 in response to suspicions, raised by Trump and others, that the president may not have been born in the United States.

In the latest NBC News survey, Trump continues to lead the 16 Republicans vying for the party’s presidential nomination, at 29 percent – more than twice the support respondents gave Carson, in second place at 14 percent.

‘Shari’a-scare tactics’

Last June CAIR, which describes itself as “America’s largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization,” launched a website tracking 2016 presidential candidates’ opinions on Islam.

An early entry on that site complained that Carson in a 2014 op-ed had employed “shari’a-scare tactics” by writing that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) “and the other advocates of shari’a law are growing rapidly, along with their zeal to eradicate or convert all ‘infidels.’”

Among other early examples of what CAIR labeled “Islamophobia” among 2016 presidential candidates, Trump was cited for an 2011 interview in which he agreed there was “a Muslim problem,” and added, “I didn’t see Swedish people knocking down the World Trade Center.”

CAIR’s Awad recalled Sunday that, during the last presidential campaign, Republican hopeful Herman Cain had said he would not appoint a Muslim to his cabinet or as a federal judge if elected president.

On that occasion CAIR’s criticism of Cain’s March 2011 comments did not evidently hurt his campaign. The former corporate executive surged over the summer and was leading the race that October before he lost momentum amid allegations of past sexual harassment of female employees. Cain suspended his campaign in December.

Last edited by Bestworking
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

F350F350Hall of Famer

I would advise CAIR to want in one hand and defecate in the other, see which gets filled first. The Constitution was not written taking into account that a murderous cult would be claimed as a religion. Anyone that spouts that "religion of peace" detritus has either not read Koranic passages or is a confirmed liar. 

ContendahhContendahhOld Faithful
Originally Posted by F350:

I would advise CAIR to want in one hand and defecate in the other, see which gets filled first. The Constitution was not written taking into account that a murderous cult would be claimed as a religion. Anyone that spouts that "religion of peace" detritus has either not read Koranic passages or is a confirmed liar. 

__

If you believe that, then you should condemn Carson's stated acceptance of Muslims as congressional representatives. He qualified his stance somewhat, namely “it depends on who that Muslim is and what their policies are, just as it depends on what anybody else says, you know.”

According to the deep-dyed Islamaphobes,  NO  Muslims are  to be trusted and those who come across as non-menacing are just putting on a false front.  Has Carson fallen prey to such deception?  Ask your nearest Islamaphobe; there are plenty of them around.

 

Carson's views on this topic are minor compared to his bizarre and dangerous slant on the Constitution:

 

"While speaking to a radio host last week in Iowa, Carson expounded upon his displeasure with the raft of recent rulings by federal courts striking down bans on same-sex marriage due to a finding that the laws were in violation of the United States Constitution—more specifically the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

In that interview, Dr. Carson proposed his own solution to these errant judges—Congress should simply fire any judge in the federal system whose rulings on the constitutionality of a particular law, or lack thereof, disagree with the majority view of whomever happens to be in control of Congress.

 

So much for that whole independent, third branch of government thing our Founders felt was worth including in our Constitution."

 

Read more about Carson's abysmal ignorance of the Constitution:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ri...-the-constitution/2/

Last edited by Contendahh
ContendahhContendahhOld Faithful
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

What about "Mormonaphobes"? You hypocrite.

____

I do NOT fear Mormons; thus there is no phobia involved. Over time, I have entered a very large amount of well-documented information in this forum concerning the Mormon belief system.  In the discussions following such posts, you have to my knowledge never made any kind of substantive contribution. You find it very easy to cry "hypocrite", instead of stretching your limited knowledge to make any kind of meaningful contribution.  That is a weak, cheap and shallow form of participation in a forum, which is intended to be a marketplace of ideas, not a venue for vituperation. Clean up your incompetent act.

F350F350Hall of Famer
Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by F350:

I would advise CAIR to want in one hand and defecate in the other, see which gets filled first. The Constitution was not written taking into account that a murderous cult would be claimed as a religion. Anyone that spouts that "religion of peace" detritus has either not read Koranic passages or is a confirmed liar. 

__

If you believe that, then you should condemn Carson's stated acceptance of Muslims as congressional representatives. He qualified his stance somewhat, namely “it depends on who that Muslim is and what their policies are, just as it depends on what anybody else says, you know.”

According to the deep-dyed Islamaphobes,  NO  Muslims are  to be trusted and those who come across as non-menacing are just putting on a false front.  Has Carson fallen prey to such deception?  Ask your nearest Islamaphobe; there are plenty of them around.

 

Carson's views on this topic are minor compared to his bizarre and dangerous slant on the Constitution:

 

"While speaking to a radio host last week in Iowa, Carson expounded upon his displeasure with the raft of recent rulings by federal courts striking down bans on same-sex marriage due to a finding that the laws were in violation of the United States Constitution—more specifically the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

In that interview, Dr. Carson proposed his own solution to these errant judges—Congress should simply fire any judge in the federal system whose rulings on the constitutionality of a particular law, or lack thereof, disagree with the majority view of whomever happens to be in control of Congress.

 

So much for that whole independent, third branch of government thing our Founders felt was worth including in our Constitution."

 

Read more about Carson's abysmal ignorance of the Constitution:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ri...-the-constitution/2/

 

I've noticed that you like to throw that "Islamophobia" accusation around. I've always considered phobias to be primarily unreasoning fears. I would not characterize a concern for a proven, often repeated propensity for violent acts primarily against unsuspecting innocent victims as Islamophobia. Just acknowledgement of the facts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...st_terrorist_attacks

 

BestworkingBestworkingOld Faithful
Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

What about "Mormonaphobes"? You hypocrite.

____

I do NOT fear Mormons; thus there is no phobia involved. Over time, I have entered a very large amount of well-documented information in this forum concerning the Mormon belief system.  In the discussions following such posts, you have to my knowledge never made any kind of substantive contribution. You find it very easy to cry "hypocrite", instead of stretching your limited knowledge to make any kind of meaningful contribution.  That is a weak, cheap and shallow form of participation in a forum, which is intended to be a marketplace of ideas, not a venue for vituperation. Clean up your incompetent act.

===============

No one cares about your so called information concerning the Mormon's beliefs. They are as entitled to them as you seem to think you are entitled to yours. If you didn't fear Mormons you'd keep your yap shut about them, but you can't. My act is clean, yours however stinks to high heaven. You dare talk about people that don't trust the muslims, and call them names, but you run down Mormons? You think a freaking muslim should hold office but go crazy with your attacks if a Mormon runs. Cheap and shallow is what you are. Go ahead and defend muslims while you run down Mormons, and I will keep calling you the hypocrite that you are.

Oh, and beternnun, you don't seem to have a problem with the muslim's beliefs.

Last edited by Bestworking
ContendahhContendahhOld Faithful
Originally Posted by Bestworking:
Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

What about "Mormonaphobes"? You hypocrite.

____

I do NOT fear Mormons; thus there is no phobia involved. Over time, I have entered a very large amount of well-documented information in this forum concerning the Mormon belief system.  In the discussions following such posts, you have to my knowledge never made any kind of substantive contribution. You find it very easy to cry "hypocrite", instead of stretching your limited knowledge to make any kind of meaningful contribution.  That is a weak, cheap and shallow form of participation in a forum, which is intended to be a marketplace of ideas, not a venue for vituperation. Clean up your incompetent act.

===============

No one cares about your so called information concerning the Mormon's beliefs. They are as entitled to them as you seem to think you are entitled to yours. If you didn't fear Mormons you'd keep your yap shut about them, but you can't. My act is clean, yours however stinks to high heaven. You dare talk about people that don't trust the muslims, and call them names, but you run down Mormons? You think a freaking muslim should hold office but go crazy with your attacks if a Mormon runs. Cheap and shallow is what you are. Go ahead and defend muslims while you run down Mormons, and I will keep calling you the hypocrite that you are.

Oh, and beternnun, you don't seem to have a problem with the muslim's beliefs.

_____

Best blithers thusly; my responses in blue:

 

"No one cares about your so called information concerning the Mormon's beliefs." So you are now speaking for everyone on this forum and anyone else with whom I have shared my take on Mormonism? Is that not more than a little presumptuous?

 

"They are as entitled to them as you seem to think you are entitled to yours."Yes, the Mormons are entitled to believe what they wish to believe, but being so entitled does not give them immunity from being challenged on those beliefs

 

"If you didn't fear Mormons you'd keep your yap shut about them, but you can't."  That is a pretty broad assertion, Best.  Are we to believe that frequent or detailed commenting upon a particular person or group equates to having "fear" of them?  If so, there are a lot of folks on this forum and elsewhere who fear the President and Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and the "Demoslops" (your recent favorite pejorative). Which of these do YOU "fear"? 

 

My act is clean, yours however stinks to high heaven. Raw, unsubstantiated opinion not deserving of any reply.

 

You dare talk about people that don't trust the muslims, and call them names, but you run down Mormons? I have had some critical things to say about Muslims.  For example, several times on this forum I have made the point that if only  a very small percentage of the world's billion or so Muslims wish me dead, that number equates to millions of them, and I can hardly be comfortable with that.  I have several times pointed out the the Muslim god is not the same God as the Judeo- Christian God and have provided documentation to support that. I am not soft on Muslims.

 

You think a freaking muslim should hold office but go crazy with your attacks if a Mormon runs.

 

I have never contended that a Mormon is not entitled to seek or occupy a public office.  Nor do I agree with those who hold that Mormons should be denied the right to hold a public office in this nation.  I simply subscribe to what the Constitution says in Article 6, namely that "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any  Office or Trust under the United States." You got a problem with THAT?

 

"Cheap and shallow is what you are. Go ahead and defend muslims while you run down Mormons, and I will keep calling you the hypocrite that you are". Defending the Constitutional rights of Muslims or of those of any other belief is not un-American.  Telling the truth about Mormonism, with more than ample documentation, is not running down Mormons.  Truth enlightens, and does not "run down." In discussions about Mormon beliefs, Best, your focus has been solely on criticizing those of us (and I have not been alone) who have taken issue with official Mormon beliefs, but you fail to substantively address the issues we have raised, preferring simply (and simple-mindedly) to harshly take issue with the fact that we rise to dispute and challenge the Mormon belief system.  Mormons, no more than any other belief system, are not immune from criticism. 

 

"Oh, and beternnun, you don't seem to have a problem with the muslim's beliefs."

I have all kinds of problems with Muslim beliefs.  I have previously sdescribed some of these on this forum. I consider their beliefs to be in many ways abominable and heretical. But even heretics are entitled to their beliefs and even abominable persons are entitled to seek public office, unless their abominations amount to criminal activity that would disqualify them. 

ContendahhContendahhOld Faithful

From F-350:

 

"I've noticed that you like to throw that "Islamophobia" accusation around. I've always considered phobias to be primarily unreasoning fears. I would not characterize a concern for a proven, often repeated propensity for violent acts primarily against unsuspecting innocent victims as Islamophobia. Just acknowledgement of the facts."

 

A phobia is indeed an unreasoning fear.  It is, in my opinion, irrational to fear ALL Muslims.

I have often made the point on this forum that if even a small percentage of the world's billion or so Muslims wish me dead, that amounts to millions who wish me dead and that makes me very uncomfortable, and for good reason. I reserve the term Islamophobic for those who condemn all Muslims as hateful and potentially murderous.

direstraitsdirestraitsOld Faithful
Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by F350:

I would advise CAIR to want in one hand and defecate in the other, see which gets filled first. The Constitution was not written taking into account that a murderous cult would be claimed as a religion. Anyone that spouts that "religion of peace" detritus has either not read Koranic passages or is a confirmed liar. 

__

If you believe that, then you should condemn Carson's stated acceptance of Muslims as congressional representatives. He qualified his stance somewhat, namely “it depends on who that Muslim is and what their policies are, just as it depends on what anybody else says, you know.”

According to the deep-dyed Islamaphobes,  NO  Muslims are  to be trusted and those who come across as non-menacing are just putting on a false front.  Has Carson fallen prey to such deception?  Ask your nearest Islamaphobe; there are plenty of them around.

 

Carson's views on this topic are minor compared to his bizarre and dangerous slant on the Constitution:

 

"While speaking to a radio host last week in Iowa, Carson expounded upon his displeasure with the raft of recent rulings by federal courts striking down bans on same-sex marriage due to a finding that the laws were in violation of the United States Constitution—more specifically the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

In that interview, Dr. Carson proposed his own solution to these errant judges—Congress should simply fire any judge in the federal system whose rulings on the constitutionality of a particular law, or lack thereof, disagree with the majority view of whomever happens to be in control of Congress.

 

So much for that whole independent, third branch of government thing our Founders felt was worth including in our Constitution."

 

Read more about Carson's abysmal ignorance of the Constitution:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ri...-the-constitution/2/

 

Your link takes one to a page with a dozen articles, none on the constitution.

Although, the zombie one might refer to Democrats.

 

Congress can fire any elected or appointed official thru the process of impeachment by the house and trial in the senate.  Usually only extreme cases for malfeasance.

 

To take it to an extreme, suppose 5 members of SCOTUS found that despite amendments to the contrary, a penumbra allowed the enslavement of blacks or a scientific study that found women are incapable of completely reason thought, their right of suffrage could be removed.  Congress could charge the five with rebellion against the constitution and remove them from office. 

 

 

ContendahhContendahhOld Faithful
Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by F350:

I would advise CAIR to want in one hand and defecate in the other, see which gets filled first. The Constitution was not written taking into account that a murderous cult would be claimed as a religion. Anyone that spouts that "religion of peace" detritus has either not read Koranic passages or is a confirmed liar. 

__

If you believe that, then you should condemn Carson's stated acceptance of Muslims as congressional representatives. He qualified his stance somewhat, namely “it depends on who that Muslim is and what their policies are, just as it depends on what anybody else says, you know.”

According to the deep-dyed Islamaphobes,  NO  Muslims are  to be trusted and those who come across as non-menacing are just putting on a false front.  Has Carson fallen prey to such deception?  Ask your nearest Islamaphobe; there are plenty of them around.

 

Carson's views on this topic are minor compared to his bizarre and dangerous slant on the Constitution:

 

"While speaking to a radio host last week in Iowa, Carson expounded upon his displeasure with the raft of recent rulings by federal courts striking down bans on same-sex marriage due to a finding that the laws were in violation of the United States Constitution—more specifically the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

In that interview, Dr. Carson proposed his own solution to these errant judges—Congress should simply fire any judge in the federal system whose rulings on the constitutionality of a particular law, or lack thereof, disagree with the majority view of whomever happens to be in control of Congress.

 

So much for that whole independent, third branch of government thing our Founders felt was worth including in our Constitution."

 

Read more about Carson's abysmal ignorance of the Constitution:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ri...-the-constitution/2/

 

Your link takes one to a page with a dozen articles, none on the constitution.

Although, the zombie one might refer to Democrats.

 

Congress can fire any elected or appointed official thru the process of impeachment by the house and trial in the senate.  Usually only extreme cases for malfeasance.

 

To take it to an extreme, suppose 5 members of SCOTUS found that despite amendments to the contrary, a penumbra allowed the enslavement of blacks or a scientific study that found women are incapable of completely reason thought, their right of suffrage could be removed.  Congress could charge the five with rebellion against the constitution and remove them from office. 

____

Pretty weak of you, dire.  The process of impeachment resides solely in  the House of Representatives and must rest on something much more substantial than a House majority's difference of views.  In any case of impeachment, a two-thirds majority is required, not just a simple majority as Carson apparently thinks.

 

"[R]ebellion against the Constitution" is an offense nowhere mentioned in the Constitution or in any other legal instrumentality governing the matter of impeachment.The sole basis for impeachment is "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." (Article II , Sec. 4). The Supreme Court, in meeting its responsibility to render final opinions on controversial matters before it can hardly be conceived of as committing any of these impeachable offenses.

 A little history for you:

"Only one Supreme Court Justice, Samuel Chase (one of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence), has ever been impeached. The House of Representatives accused Chase of letting his Federalist political leanings affect his rulings, and served him with eight articles of impeachment in late 1804. The Senate acquitted him of all charges in 1805, establishing the right of the judiciary to independent opinion. Chase continued on the Court until his death in June   1811. "

 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2543298/posts

 

Last edited by Contendahh
teyatesteyatesOld Faithful

I don't have a problem with  a Muslim inhabiting the WH, IF they claim that upfront, run on that context and are elected by a fair majority.  For them to try and sneak into the WH, posing as another, and trying to get votes in a less than honorable fashion, should be prosecuted by law. I don't think, however, given the past historical events in this country, a professed "Muslim" will be elected in the near future. A "closet" Muslim on the other hand probably stands a chance given the ineptitude and gullability of the Left.

F350F350Hall of Famer
Originally Posted by Contendahh:

From F-350:

 

"I've noticed that you like to throw that "Islamophobia" accusation around. I've always considered phobias to be primarily unreasoning fears. I would not characterize a concern for a proven, often repeated propensity for violent acts primarily against unsuspecting innocent victims as Islamophobia. Just acknowledgement of the facts."

 

A phobia is indeed an unreasoning fear.  It is, in my opinion, irrational to fear ALL Muslims.

I have often made the point on this forum that if even a small percentage of the world's billion or so Muslims wish me dead, that amounts to millions who wish me dead and that makes me very uncomfortable, and for good reason. I reserve the term Islamophobic for those who condemn all Muslims as hateful and potentially murderous.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not fear all Muslims. I just do not trust anyone who follows Islam. For that matter, as an atheist, I don't have an affinity for any religious beliefs. I do tolerate religions as long as they don't call for my destruction. Islam calls for my destruction and therefore Islamic believers are dangerous due to their beliefs. Unfortunately there is plenty of recent history, see link, which illustrates just how dangerous this particular form of religious zealotry is. What other religion can you point to with this kind of recent history?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...st_terrorist_attacks

budsfarmbudsfarmOld Faithful
Originally Posted by teyates:

I don't have a problem with  a Muslim inhabiting the WH, IF they claim that upfront, run on that context and are elected by a fair majority.  For them to try and sneak into the WH, posing as another, and trying to get votes in a less than honorable fashion, should be prosecuted by law. I don't think, however, given the past historical events in this country, a professed "Muslim" will be elected in the near future. A "closet" Muslim on the other hand probably stands a chance given the ineptitude and gullability of the Left.

 

+++

 

Me either, Tey.

 

Provided said Muslim denounces Radical Islam for the damm murdering brutal terrorist they are.

 

Meaning = ain't gonna happen.

 

direstraitsdirestraitsOld Faithful
Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by F350:

I would advise CAIR to want in one hand and defecate in the other, see which gets filled first. The Constitution was not written taking into account that a murderous cult would be claimed as a religion. Anyone that spouts that "religion of peace" detritus has either not read Koranic passages or is a confirmed liar. 

__

If you believe that, then you should condemn Carson's stated acceptance of Muslims as congressional representatives. He qualified his stance somewhat, namely “it depends on who that Muslim is and what their policies are, just as it depends on what anybody else says, you know.”

According to the deep-dyed Islamaphobes,  NO  Muslims are  to be trusted and those who come across as non-menacing are just putting on a false front.  Has Carson fallen prey to such deception?  Ask your nearest Islamaphobe; there are plenty of them around.

 

Carson's views on this topic are minor compared to his bizarre and dangerous slant on the Constitution:

 

"While speaking to a radio host last week in Iowa, Carson expounded upon his displeasure with the raft of recent rulings by federal courts striking down bans on same-sex marriage due to a finding that the laws were in violation of the United States Constitution—more specifically the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

In that interview, Dr. Carson proposed his own solution to these errant judges—Congress should simply fire any judge in the federal system whose rulings on the constitutionality of a particular law, or lack thereof, disagree with the majority view of whomever happens to be in control of Congress.

 

So much for that whole independent, third branch of government thing our Founders felt was worth including in our Constitution."

 

Read more about Carson's abysmal ignorance of the Constitution:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ri...-the-constitution/2/

 

Your link takes one to a page with a dozen articles, none on the constitution.

Although, the zombie one might refer to Democrats.

 

Congress can fire any elected or appointed official thru the process of impeachment by the house and trial in the senate.  Usually only extreme cases for malfeasance.

 

To take it to an extreme, suppose 5 members of SCOTUS found that despite amendments to the contrary, a penumbra allowed the enslavement of blacks or a scientific study that found women are incapable of completely reason thought, their right of suffrage could be removed.  Congress could charge the five with rebellion against the constitution and remove them from office. 

____

Pretty weak of you, dire.  The process of impeachment resides solely in  the House of Representatives and must rest on something much more substantial than a House majority's difference of views.  In any case of impeachment, a two-thirds majority is required, not just a simple majority as Carson apparently thinks.

 

"[R]ebellion against the Constitution" is an offense nowhere mentioned in the Constitution or in any other legal instrumentality governing the matter of impeachment.The sole basis for impeachment is "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." (Article II , Sec. 4). The Supreme Court, in meeting its responsibility to render final opinions on controversial matters before it can hardly be conceived of as committing any of these impeachable offenses.

 A little history for you:

"Only one Supreme Court Justice, Samuel Chase (one of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence), has ever been impeached. The House of Representatives accused Chase of letting his Federalist political leanings affect his rulings, and served him with eight articles of impeachment in late 1804. The Senate acquitted him of all charges in 1805, establishing the right of the judiciary to independent opinion. Chase continued on the Court until his death in June   1811. "

 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2543298/posts

______________________________________________________---

Contenduhh,

 

By your logic, SCOTUS may, if 5 agree, usurp any act of congress and article and amendment to the constitution.   Just as the Whiskey Rebellion did violence against the constitutional government, so truly corrupt judiciary might commit rebellion against the same authority.  To not admit, that in certain extreme circumstances Congress has a check upon a runaway or corrupt judiciary is not reasonable. 

 

The president has a similar check against the judiciary, which should be used in only exceptional circumstances -- simply refuse to obey their orders,  SCOTUS has no armed authority beyond their building.  Unfortunately, the best example of a president exercising this authority was Jackson's removal of the eastern tribes in the Trail of Tears.

 

ContendahhContendahhOld Faithful
Originally Posted by direstraits:
 

Contenduhh,

 

By your logic, SCOTUS may, if 5 agree, usurp any act of congress and article and amendment to the constitution.   Just as the Whiskey Rebellion did violence against the constitutional government, so truly corrupt judiciary might commit rebellion against the same authority.  To not admit, that in certain extreme circumstances Congress has a check upon a runaway or corrupt judiciary is not reasonable. 

 

The president has a similar check against the judiciary, which should be used in only exceptional circumstances -- simply refuse to obey their orders,  SCOTUS has no armed authority beyond their building.  Unfortunately, the best example of a president exercising this authority was Jackson's removal of the eastern tribes in the Trail of Tears.

 _____________

"Usurp" is hardly the word you seek.  Look it up.  You probably mean "rescind." or "repeal." Be that as it may, your hypothetical is a real stretch and your choice of an example is utterly inapplicable.  The Whiskey Rebellion did not pit one branch of government against another.  It was an uprising promoted by certain disgruntled elements of the private citizenry, mainly farmers and distillers, who resented  imposition of a legal excise  tax on spirits, including whiskey and other high-proof stuff, to pay back  war debt.  It was promptly put down by a 13,000-man militia assembled from several states and led by George Washington himself. The only thing the Whiskey Rebellion has in common with your judiciary rebellion theory is the coincidental use of the word "rebellion." This incident confirmed the authority and ability of the federal government to enforce its laws. It has no relationship to the issue of separation of powers. Try again.

 

Congress' only Constitutionally-specified check on the Supreme Court is its ability, for cause, to impeach miscreant justices for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." (Article II , Sec. 4).   

 

Last edited by Contendahh

Add Reply

Post
affilated websites:
Times Daily | Decatur Daily | Courier Journal | The Hartselle Enquirer | Moulton Advertiser | The Redstone Rocket | The Madison Record | The Franklin County Times | Reach256 | TNValleyStuff.com TNValleyHomefinder.com | TNValleyWheels.com

Terms of Service | Private Policy | California Privacy Policy/Private Policy

Untitled Document

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×