Ad hominem attack. 10 point deduction.
But Carson was not talking as a private citizen making a decision in the booth. He was speaking as a potential president indicating he had no knowledge of the Constitution's "no religious test" phrase.
Gee, I didn't know that you gave up your free speech rights when you declare yourself a candidate for office. When did this begin?
There is a difference between me as a private citizen, and a potential PRESIDENT saying flat out he would violate the Constitution, or claiming the Constitution is wrong. Voters can do what they want.
He never said he would violate the consitition. He merely said he does not think a Muslim should be elected to lead the United States of America.
Do you think America should have a Muslim President? Would you vote for one? Would you support one right now?
Since when did Ben Carson give up the right to express an opinion? Does the Religious Test clause apply to the opinions of private citizens who are merely candidates for elected office?
But stick to the question: Are you saying the Constitution is flawed?
No the consitution is just fine (except for the Amendments after the 15th). It is merely your arguments that are flawed.
I say that as a candidate, he enters a different level in which ALL of his statements must be judged as if he were president, and therefore are considered differently. I tell my students all the time what I'd do when appointed Dictator of America. Plenty of it is unconstitutional. But if I were to run for office, I would certainly expect to never say those things because it would indicate an intent NOT to uphold my oath of office.
When a Dem says something like "When I'm elected I'll confiscate guns." That disqualifies him immediately, even though he's a private citizen, because he's already indicated he won't keep his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution. I think Carson just did that. But, if you don't, fine.