Like many around here, I spend a lot of time shaking my head at the actions of some on the political right. From union-busting in Wisconsin to immigration laws in Arizona, from birthers to death panels, from statements-that-were-not-intended-to-be-factually-accurate to statements-likening-homosexuality-to-man-on-dog-sex, I keep thinking it has to stop sometime. Only I seem to be wrong.
In any case, the mood is pretty ugly over on that side, and the scapegoats are many, though largely black, Hispanic, gay, and/or Muslim. And it occurred to me to wonder whether, and when, some scared and screwy state senator will introduce a bill in his or her state legislature to forbid Muslims from holding elective office in that state.
I’m not saying such a bill would pass, or be signed by the governor, even if the Republicans controlled the entire state government. And I certainly don’t see how it could ever be upheld as remotely constitutional. But given the often hysterical opposition to the building of a mosque in lower Manhattan, the constant screams that Obama is a secret Muslim (check out some of the Obama rumors on snopes sometime), and the laws recently passed in Oklahoma (and elsewhere?) specifying that Sharia law can’t be used as the basis for anything (a solution in search of a problem, given the heavy-duty lobbying for Sharia law by oodles and oodles of Oklahomans), it seems all too possible to me that a grandstanding (or perhaps truly-frightened-by-all-the-rhetoric) legislator might try it.
Anyway, I’d love to be convinced that it won’t happen. But I think it will, and for an over-under on it I’d take February 15 of 2012. What say you?
Nope. I heard a great piece on NPR yesterday, I think, and it was discussing the right and the tea party folks. Many in their own districts are disheartened by their freshman behavior. There are locales that they are lauded, but not to the extent that they would have any control over what you are saying. I’d really not worry about it.
Wouldn’t a law forbidding Muslims from holding elective office automatically be unconstitutional, so much so that it wouldn’t even hold up for floor debate?
It could conceivably be passed if the political climate in some state allowed for it, but it would be struck down fairly quickly either in state courts or federal courts.
Right, I absolutely agree that it would not stand. My question is, (when) will somebody try?
Oddly, I don’t think you’re being cynical enough. You’re giving politicians credit for being sincere in their beliefs and/or fears. What’s really happening* is that politicians are pretending to have these fears and talking them up so as to keep their constituents in a state of near panic, so they won’t even consider the possibility of voting against their defenders. The cynic’s view is that none of these politicians actually believe what they’re saying, and so would never be dumb enough to shoot themselves in the foot by lobbying for such a clearly unconstitutional law. Now, change “law” to “constitutional amendment”, and then you’ve got a discussion.
*for variable values of “really”
What counts as “try?”
The Indiana legislature once entertained a bill that would have changed the value of pi by law… but it went nowhere.
So the bar for crazy legislation to merely be introduced is quite low. And you can’t lay this at the feet of the current wave of ignorant right-winger – the pi bill happened in 1897.
I think you’re giving this stuff too much attention – treating it as if they seriously believed it.
For example, this specific item you mentioned – have you heard anything about that lately? No, it’s pretty much all died down now – because the election is over. It was really just another cynical effort by Fox News, etc. to get their right-wing base excited and make sure they turned out to vote in November. Now that’s gone by, so it doesn’t matter any more, and they’ve dropped the issue. Because they really didn’t care about it in the first place. It might get revived for the election of 2012, but probably not – it will be an accomplished fact by then, and there will be new hot-button issues for them to push.
Do you think a lot of the Nazi Socialists really believed half of the stuff they said about Jews? Maybe, maybe not. Certainly not everyone.
It doesn’t take a majority that want to suppress a minority to actually do that. It just takes a degree of power and influence over the majority. That being said, you’d have to rock a state constitutional amendment that circumvents the actual religion and focuses on something else that would somehow bar most Muslims from running for office.
If parties prohibited Muslims for running for office, that would certainly create a funding issue.
I mean, Jim Crow voter laws didn’t say blacks couldn’t vote. It was just extremely hard.
Hey, we wrote same-sex marriage into state constitutions. :rolleyes:
*personally, I wish we could do away with state constitutions
Would make the states pretty hard to govern, don’t ya think?