Ben Carson: A Muslim shouldn't be elected president

jem said:
that is a modification of your position. Before you acted like Federal Law always wins because its was federal law...
arguing the court gets decide is a different point.


we know the supreme court knows it grabbed power out of thin air in Marbury vs Madison and it is acutely aware of its lack of power... which is why it seems even Roberts hesitates to create a constitutional crisis.

States have rights... the court and the fed could say otherwise it would not matter...nobody really wants the feds and states to go to war on most issues... we don't need more civil wars....

which is why the feds seem to be backing down on the marijuana laws.
the people of the states have voted and nullified federal law... and the Fed is properly backing down in my opinion even though I don't smoke pot.
More...

Federal law does win most of the times, much more than your state law position. If you are agreeing to what I wrote about the Supreme Court, you too have modified your position. States may have rights, but Federal law has normally triumphed those rights, is that false?

As for the government backing away from legalizing pot, the case hasn't gone to the Supreme Court meaning the government is more accepting of pot use nowadays. Many of the government probably wouldn't mind legalized weed. If they did, you can bet they would try to fight it via Supreme Court just like states try to do on any issues that arise between the two. Times have changed and the government just isn't very conservative anymore, especially the Obama administration.
 
FAMi9Lx.jpg
 
this was your quote.

"Let me translate: When a situation arises and Federal law and States law conflict, Federal law always wins out period."





FXTraderSK said:
Federal law does win most of the times, much more than your state law position. If you are agreeing to what I wrote about the Supreme Court, you too have modified your position. States may have rights, but Federal law has normally triumphed those rights, is that false?

As for the government backing away from legalizing pot, the case hasn't gone to the Supreme Court meaning the government is more accepting of pot use nowadays. Many of the government probably wouldn't mind legalized weed. If they did, you can bet they would try to fight it via Supreme Court just like states try to do on any issues that arise between the two. Times have changed and the government just isn't very conservative anymore, especially the Obama administration.
More...
 
Last edited:
wjk said:
A blind man could see the obvious: Todd wanted Carson to say we have a president who is a Muslim. That was the game. Why else would he have put it out there? I already said how it should have been answered. We do not have legitimate journalism in this country at this point. Mostly operatives of each party. Too bad...for the country.
More...
I didn't see the exchange, and only heard after the fact what Carson said. So I don't know what the questioner's intent may or may not have been. However, I think candidates on both sides should be asked hard questions, including those that may catch them unawares. How the candidate responds is how you should then judge him or her. I hope the media does the same for Democratic candidates. I'm all for the "gotcha" because it forces the candidate on either side to go off script. And that's when you see the real candidate.
 
Frederick Foresight said:
I didn't see the exchange, and only heard after the fact what Carson said. So I don't know what the questioner's intent may or may not have been. However, I think candidates on both sides should be asked hard questions, including those that may catch them unawares. How the candidate responds is how you should then judge him or her. I hope the media does the same for Democratic candidates. I'm all for the "gotcha" because it forces the candidate on either side to go off script. And that's when you see the real candidate.
More...
I agree, but only to a limited extent. The problem with the gotcha stuff is the biased media from either side fails to quote the entire comment, which is often a tactic designed to mislead. That then indicates to me that an agenda is at work, and I no longer consider it journalism. That doesn't necessarily make the journalist who poses the question the problem, assuming he reports the entire event (unless he has a pretty good idea how similarly biased colleagues might report it). Those who don't report the entire event, many who are journalist (or consider themselves to be) because they have an agenda are the ones I'm referring to.

Carson indicated later in his comments that he had no problem with a Muslim as president if he could be assured that a personal belief and adherence to Sharia would not interfere with an oath to the constitution (those may not have been his exact words, but he indicated that, or at least I got that impression from the quotes I read.) That, however, remained unreported for the most part.

I really don't know why this question was asked of Carson. Honestly.
 
Last edited:
wjk said:
I agree, but only to a limited extent. The problem with the gotcha stuff is the biased media from either side fails to quote the entire comment, which is often a tactic designed to mislead. That then indicates to me that an agenda is at work, and I no longer consider it journalism.

Carson indicated later in his comments that he had no problem with a Muslim as president if he could be assured that a personal belief and adherence to Sharia would not interfere with an oath to the constitution (those may not have been his exact words, but he indicated that, or at least I got that impression from the quotes I read.) That, however, remained unreported for the most part.
More...
The latter part I don't have a problem with, though one might get into Constitutional trouble if such a statement was demanded of a candidate.

The former part... good logic! Keep it in mind next time the board discusses the Planned Parenthood "sting".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top