• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Herman Cain mistake on the Constitution.

Washington D.C.

New member
Joined
May 29, 2011
Messages
27
Reaction score
9
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
If this has been discussed before, I apologize. But recently I heard Herman Cain a Conservative running for President state that "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." was in the Constitution. Before saying that we don't need to re write the Constitution. But we need to re-read the Constitution. The irony here is that Life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness is from the Declaration of Independence. Maybe he should READ the Constitution.

Also Cain went on the Glen Beck show and said he would be reluctant to appoint a Muslim to a position of power. Once again Cain shows his lack of knowledge on the Constitution. Because in Article IV, Clause 3 it says "no religion test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

I really wish some Republicans would actually read the darn thing before they try to act all patriotic.

YouTube - ‪Republicans Don't Get The Constitution - Con Job‬‏

YouTube - ‪Herman Cain Needs To Reread The Constitution, Before Telling Others to Reread the Constitution‬‏

Herman Cain should read the Constitution | United Liberty | Free Market - Individual Liberty - Limited Government
 
The Constitution guarantees the right to life, liberty and property. Maybe you should read The Constitution, before you start hacking on someone else about it?
 
The Constitution guarantees the right to life, liberty and property. Maybe you should read The Constitution, before you start hacking on someone else about it?


I'm talking about Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which is in the Declaration of Independence. How can you not understand the difference between property and the pursuit of happiness? Honestly it's like you didn't even read what I wrote.
 
If this has been discussed before, I apologize. But recently I heard Herman Cain a Conservative running for President state that "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." was in the Constitution. Before saying that we don't need to re write the Constitution. But we need to re-read the Constitution. The irony here is that Life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness is from the Declaration of Independence. Maybe he should READ the Constitution.

Also Cain went on the Glen Beck show and said he would be reluctant to appoint a Muslim to a position of power. Once again Cain shows his lack of knowledge on the Constitution. Because in Article IV, Clause 3 it says "no religion test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

I really wish some Republicans would actually read the darn thing before they try to act all patriotic.

YouTube - ‪Republicans Don't Get The Constitution - Con Job‬‏

YouTube - ‪Herman Cain Needs To Reread The Constitution, Before Telling Others to Reread the Constitution‬‏

Herman Cain should read the Constitution | United Liberty | Free Market - Individual Liberty - Limited Government

This a pretty common mistake because as apdst says:
The Constitution guarantees the right to life, liberty and property. Maybe you should read The Constitution, before you start hacking on someone else about it?
Many get this confused because few people read either Document after School.
 
This a pretty common mistake because as apdst says:
Many get this confused because few people read either Document after School.

I can understand that, but don't quote something if you're not positive about it. And besides I'm more angered about him not appointing Muslims to a position of power based off of their religion. I think we need to discuss that more than the Declaration of Independence blunder. Because if he really believes that, then there is something to be concerned about.
 
1) The quote IS from the DoI, NOT the Constitution. It is irrelevant as to what the Constitution represents. The quote is not there.
2) Very minor error that I think is really irrelevant when assessing Cain as a candidate.
3) Let's see how many Conservatives will by hypocritical in THIS thread by minimizing this issue, but over reacting to Obama's 2008 flub. I already see two.
 
It's just Cain isn't the first Republican I've see discriminate against Muslims.
 
I heard Herman Cain say that during the GOP debate and the other GOP candidates kinda followed suite stating they wouldn't appoint a Muslim to their Cabinet unless they swore an oath to the Constitution. It's an interesting "politically correct" statement to make actually.

Most members of the President's staff must be approved by Congress. The "czars" which every President has had them since Nixon, I think are appointed by the President himself. So, it's kind of a Catch-22. Still, I wonder if any of these GOP candidates would actually have every swearing in ceremony for members of their Cabinet open to the public or will they only do so if such applies only to Muslim members?

Frankly speaking, I think the GOP candidates did themselves a disservice on this particular religious issue because they came across as being very exclusionary on religious intolerance. I understand the concern but that's why we have background investigations to root out the subverters. Use the proper procedures and security checks and you shouldn't have to worry about "the terrorist in your midst".
 
Bigotry sells well in the GOP.

Yeha, cause look at the GOP's backing of government programs that discriminate against people with the wrong skin color!


Oh wait.. that's the Dem's that do that...
 
I heard Herman Cain say that during the GOP debate and the other GOP candidates kinda followed suite stating they wouldn't appoint a Muslim to their Cabinet unless they swore an oath to the Constitution. It's an interesting "politically correct" statement to make actually.

Only Governor Romney and Speaker Gingrich commented on the issue. Governor Romney distanced himself from Mr. Cain's position. Speaker Gingrich appeared to embrace loyalty tests. IMO, both Mr. Cain's and Speaker Gingrich's views on that issue are incompatible with the Constitution.

From the transcript:

ROMNEY: ...No, I think we recognize that the people of all faiths are welcome in this country. Our nation was founded on a principal of religious tolerance. That's in fact why some of the early patriots came to this country and we treat people with respect regardless of their religious persuasion.

Obviously, anybody who would come into my administration would be someone who I knew, who I was comfortable with, and who I believed would honor as their highest oath -- their oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States.

KING: Mr. Speaker, go ahead.

GINGRICH: I just want to comment for a second. The Pakistani who emigrated to the U.S. became a citizen, built a car bomb which luckily failed to go off in Times Square was asked by the federal judge, how could he have done that when he signed -- when he swore an oath to the United States. And he looked at the judge and said, "You're my enemy. I lied."

Now, I just want to go out on a limb here. I'm in favor of saying to people, if you're not prepared to be loyal to the United States, you will not serve in my administration, period.

GINGRICH: We did this -- we did this in dealing with the Nazis and we did this in dealing with the communists. And it was controversial both times, and both times we discovered after a while, you know, there are some genuinely bad people who would like to infiltrate our country. And we have got to have the guts to stand up and say no.

CNN.com - Transcripts
 
Yeha, cause look at the GOP's backing of government programs that discriminate against people with the wrong skin color!


Oh wait.. that's the Dem's that do that...

I just don't understand why you would want to vote for somebody who doesn't understand the basic principles of our country. I guess you're so determine to defeat Obama that you're willing to vote for an uneducated pizza boy.
 
Only Governor Romney and Speaker Gingrich commented on the issue. Governor Romney distanced himself from Mr. Cain's position. Speaker Gingrich appeared to embrace loyalty tests. IMO, both Mr. Cain's and Speaker Gingrich's views on that issue are incompatible with the Constitution.

CNN.com - Transcripts

Then I stand corrected. You are correct concerning Romney. He was the only GOP candidate on the debate panel who in my view answered the question appropriately.
 
Filthy...

Imagine if your mother was a Muslim-American and you heard presidential candidates saying you had to take a "loyalty test" in order to even be considered for nomination like that isn't implied of any person running for any public position in government. Adopting this anti-Muslim/anti-Islamic stance is mere convenience for some people and they are happy to promote it if it can get them more votes. If being pro-Muslim got them into the presidency, the conversation would have a decidedly different lean to it.
 
I just don't understand why you would want to vote for somebody who doesn't understand the basic principles of our country. I guess you're so determine to defeat Obama that you're willing to vote for an uneducated pizza boy.

Didn't stop the community organizer from getting elected.

What's the next complaint ... that Herman farted ?
 
Didn't stop the community organizer from getting elected.

What's the next complaint ... that Herman farted ?

Herman farted?

What is with these childish comments?

Why can't I just not support him because he doesn't understand Article IV Clause 3 of the Constitution? IMO I think that it is great that we don't need our candidates to take religious test to hold any office. And I would just like to point out, I liked Mitt Romney's response last night.
 
In response to the OP, I do not think they behave patriotic. Exclusion, fear, and prejudice are not patriotic qualities at all. Nor do they have a place in a free society.
 
This a pretty common mistake because as apdst says:
Many get this confused because few people read either Document after School.

Actually, the right to life, liberty, and property is in another document called the Declaration of Colonial Rights, which was a resolution passed by the first Continental Congress, although the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution do say that one cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process.

So guess what? You guys bashing each other over this point are both right. LOL.
 
Last edited:
In response to the OP, I do not think they behave patriotic. Exclusion, fear, and prejudice are not patriotic qualities at all. Nor do they have a place in a free society.

I was referring to the life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness when talking about Cain trying to be patriotic. I agree with you regarding him trying to oppose Muslims as exclusion and prejudice.
 
The Constitution guarantees the right to life, liberty and property. Maybe you should read The Constitution, before you start hacking on someone else about it?

More to the point...

The 5th Amendment does offer protections to our "life, liberty, or property," noting we cannot be deprived of any of them without due process of law. Also, it protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure.

These rights aren't without limits.
 
More to the point...

The 5th Amendment does offer protections to our "life, liberty, or property," noting we cannot be deprived of any of them without due process of law. Also, it protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure.

These rights aren't without limits.

I completely agree. With rights come responsibilities. It is unfortunate that some people tend to forget about the responsibilites part of it, and only scream about their rights.
 
I completely agree. With rights come responsibilities. It is unfortunate that some people tend to forget about the responsibilites part of it, and only scream about their rights.

Oh, buddy off topic but Kevorkian is dead man.
 
Oh, buddy off topic but Kevorkian is dead man.

Do you believe in life after death? I do, so I am voting for Kevorkian's ghost for president's physician. OK, call me wacko, but I don't think I am any more insane than Sarah Palin. :mrgreen:
 
Herman farted?

What is with these childish comments?

Why can't I just not support him because he doesn't understand Article IV Clause 3 of the Constitution? IMO I think that it is great that we don't need our candidates to take religious test to hold any office. And I would just like to point out, I liked Mitt Romney's response last night.

What's with the stupid thread ? God forbid Herman hopes folks will be happy !!!
 
Yeha, cause look at the GOP's backing of government programs that discriminate against people with the wrong skin color!


Oh wait.. that's the Dem's that do that...
It's the GOP which diesn't like to elect blacks to the federal government. Since Reconstruction, the GOP has elected only 6 black Republicans to Congress.
 
Back
Top Bottom