Posted on 11/27/2006 9:43:24 PM PST by goldstategop
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
"Keith Ellison can decide between Islam and his loyalty to America."
Absolutely! Besides, the majority dictates, not the one. Betcha there is "buyers remorse" setting in already.
+
If you want on (or off) this Catholic and Pro-Life ping list, let me know!
lets see how much play this gets (won't) on the msm.
I'd like to see this go to the Supreme Court. Jefferson and Adams, if alive today, would declare Islam unconstitutional.
All BS aside, what is the legal basis pro and con for this?
Can an elected representative sit if he refuses the oath?
bttt
Is this being reported on other than Mr. Prager? I kinda doubt it. And the dumbs---s that elected this guy should all gather round when he swears his oath to Allah. Good God help us.
I believe this to be wrong. However, after reading the following the people who elected this muskie get what they asked for.
At the start of each new Congress, in January of every odd-numbered year, the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate performs a solemn and festive constitutional rite that is as old as the Republic. While the oath-taking dates back to the First Congress in 1789, the current oath is a product of the 1860s, drafted by Civil War-era members of Congress intent on ensnaring traitors.
The Constitution contains an oath of office only for the president. For other officials, including members of Congress, that document specifies only that they "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution." In 1789, the First Congress reworked this requirement into a simple fourteen-word oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."
I believe this to be wrong. However, after reading the following the people who elected this muskie get what they asked for.
At the start of each new Congress, in January of every odd-numbered year, the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate performs a solemn and festive constitutional rite that is as old as the Republic. While the oath-taking dates back to the First Congress in 1789, the current oath is a product of the 1860s, drafted by Civil War-era members of Congress intent on ensnaring traitors.
The Constitution contains an oath of office only for the president. For other officials, including members of Congress, that document specifies only that they "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution." In 1789, the First Congress reworked this requirement into a simple fourteen-word oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."
I believe this to be wrong. However, after reading the following the people who elected this muskie get what they asked for.
At the start of each new Congress, in January of every odd-numbered year, the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate performs a solemn and festive constitutional rite that is as old as the Republic. While the oath-taking dates back to the First Congress in 1789, the current oath is a product of the 1860s, drafted by Civil War-era members of Congress intent on ensnaring traitors.
The Constitution contains an oath of office only for the president. For other officials, including members of Congress, that document specifies only that they "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution." In 1789, the First Congress reworked this requirement into a simple fourteen-word oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."
"lets see how much play this gets (won't) on the msm."
It will get a passing because the multicultural club will hold it up as a victory.
I'll bet you my entire estate he will take that oath with a Koran.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
The problem with a Muslim using the Qur'an is that the Qur'an is anti-American Constitution.
unbeleivable! Yet sadly- we'll probably coddle to him for fear of reprisals should we force him to show some actual patriotism and pledge his allegience to the Christian nation of the U.S.- Burkas and prayer rugs for everyone can't be far behind. http://sacredscoop.com
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.