[impimp]

I disagree with the legal principle of incorporation which makes the Constitution apply to states. I don’t believe a state has to guarantee religious liberty, or any other kind of liberty, just because the Constitution of the US says so. The US Constitution should apply to the federal government alone.

That is my take on Cain’s take.

[Aevery_Freeman]

The lone requirement to be a US citizen is the unconditional adoption of the American creed. To grant freedom to others and demand it for yourself - to be neither slave nor slave-holder.

Adoption of the Muslim "faith" (more like Borg allegiance) is anathema to the American creed. one must adopt one or the other.

I applauded Herman Cain's understanding of this principal. I remain blessed with at least four attractive candidates; Palin, West, Bachmann and Cain.

[Iron Munro]

Islam isn’t just a religion - it is many other things as well: political movement, terrorist organization, supporter of terrorists, quasi-military organization, legal system, economic system, etc., etc.

For these reasons Islam cannot be treated with the same respect and receive the same government protection as if it were solely a religious organization. To do so is to extend government protection to a terrorist organization whose goals are to commit genocide, overthrow the government and force citizens to live under the rules and laws of Islam.

[wolfman23601]

Have you read the 14th amendment?

[SubMareener]

The problem is that Islam is a religion and a political system. There is no separation of Mosque and State in fundamental Islam. So a Mosque of people who are “Muslim” but don't believe in Sharia Law, and don't advocate the violent overthrow of the United States Constitution would be covered under the First Amendment. However, Herman Cain says he has talked to the local people, and these are not that kind of Muslims.

[SubMareener]

The problem is that Islam is a religion and a political system. There is no separation of Mosque and State in fundamental Islam. So a Mosque of people who are “Muslim” but don't believe in Sharia Law, and don't advocate the violent overthrow of the United States Constitution would be covered under the First Amendment. However, Herman Cain says he has talked to the local people, and these are not that kind of Muslims.

[Melas]

The incorporation doctrine is centered around the Bill of Rights and criminal law. There is plenty to the constitution that bound the states from the onset, such as the guarantee of a Republican form of government. Almost all of Article 4 for example does little else than apply to the states, save for a few sentences detailing federal obligations to the states.

For what it’s worth, I have no problem with the incorporation doctrine. Any state that would abrogate the principles of the Bill of Rights, has ceased to be American.

[JadeEmperor]

"I disagree with the legal principle of incorporation which makes the Constitution apply to states. I don’t believe a state has to guarantee religious liberty, or any other kind of liberty, just because the Constitution of the US says so. The US Constitution should apply to the federal government alone."

So, for example if the state's majority decided they wanted a Judenrein state, they ought to be able to implement it?