Campaign fundraising...

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

It's unfortunate that it's come down to what I understand is an unconstitutional religious test, but that's the way it is.

How is choosing not to vote for somebody based on their religion unconstitutional?

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

How is choosing not to vote for somebody based on their religion unconstitutional?

It's not unconstitutional to choose not vote for someone based on their religious affiliation, but it's my understanding that any sort of religious test for a candidate is unconstitutional. That is, it's unconstitutional to ask if someone would or wouldn't vote for a particular person because of their religion.

I could be wrong though.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

It's not unconstitutional to choose not vote for someone based on their religious affiliation, but it's my understanding that any sort of religious test for a candidate is unconstitutional. That is, it's unconstitutional to ask if someone would or wouldn't vote for a particular person because of their religion.

I could be wrong though.

No, it means the government can't prohibit a person from running for an office based on their religion. Such religious tests were commonplace immediately after the founding. The Constitution only prohibited such tests for the federal government; states were left free to impose whatever restrictions they wanted (and most of them did for decades). The 14th Amendment really changed the structure of the Constitution in this regard to prohibit states from imposing religious tests (through the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment).

Mitt Romney has extrapolated that this means people shouldn't be concerned about his religion because the Constitution isn't. People are free to ask him about it whenever they want to, and they can refuse to vote for him for any reason whatsoever.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

No, it means the government can't prohibit a person from running for an office based on their religion. Such religious tests were commonplace immediately after the founding. The Constitution only prohibited such tests for the federal government; states were left free to impose whatever restrictions they wanted (and most of them did for decades). The 14th Amendment really changed the structure of the Constitution in this regard to prohibit states from imposing religious tests (through the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment).

Mitt Romney has extrapolated that this means people shouldn't be concerned about his religion because the Constitution isn't. People are free to ask him about it whenever they want to, and they can refuse to vote for him for any reason whatsoever.

Ok, thanks for the correct explanation.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Yeah, it was me.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...89&postcount=8

http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=2547718

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, though!

The numbers today are awful for McCain. His hopes are fading fast. Giuliani performed better than I expected, but I still can't fathom him winning the nomination as a Republican. Republicans would really have to abandon their most core elements to support him.

I think the race is Romney's to lose. The only figures that matter are these: leading polls of party insiders and members of the RNC; and winning the money race. Romney is ahead in both categories.

Obama's numbers are what I am most excited about. I still don't know if he can beat Hillary, but I am excited to hear what his dollar amount is. I hear from Drudge it is in the $20 million range. If true, he is going to give Hillary all she can handle.

What I know for sure: this will be a miserable television year. All of this money means one thing- lots of television ads. We will be pummeled with negative ads before you know it, and the non-profits will be anxious to throw their "message" out there too. Good thing for Tivo! Skip all the commercials.

You've been pretty spot on with your observations, so another question for you; do you think any of the money will be spent on ads that will include anit-Mormon ideas?

[Detroitdad]

Originally Posted by tooblue

You've been pretty spot on with your observations, so another question for you; do you think any of the money will be spent on ads that will include anit-Mormon ideas?

I bet that a lot of issue advocacy money will brush the edge of anti-Mormonism. I also would not be surprised to see some "unauthorized" people from one campaign or another putting out something that goes over the edge into anti- territory. The campaign can then retract, but the point will have been made. Just my two cents.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by tooblue

You've been pretty spot on with your observations, so another question for you; do you think any of the money will be spent on ads that will include anit-Mormon ideas?

Not directly from the candidates- that would shock me. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there are a few with anti-Mormon hints sponsored by 501(c)(3) organizations, though.