QueenTiye, on 03 April 2013 - 01:57 PM, said:
I sure hope when a republican is president again, that these lawmakers continue their secessionist frenzy. Else it might look like extreme partisanship, or even racism...
With the greatest of deference, I think even hinting at the racism card, is not applicable here. I honestly think that this move would suit the transient and self-serving political goals of its advocates, regardless of the race of the President or the ethnic skew of Islam. it's little more than flag-waving. The majority of Bible-belters may disagree with this measure on the basis of what they learned in grade school history and civics ( *er- why is it that the Pilgrims came here?), but speaking as a Georgian, I think many might find some indirect solace that someone is fighting for Christianity, in whatever misguided fashion.
I'm sure many who variously support[ed]/oppose[d] gun control, sexual orientation rights, budget reforms, marijuana legalization, the [former] 55 mph national speed limit, birth control rights, various elements of foreign policy and trade relations, etc. feel the same way about the "nutjobs" who "make us look bad, but at least they mobilize their wrong-headed sector of the citizenry" -- supporting something in which "we" may find some small merit stands a league apart from opposing it, even if we think they're idiots/scoundrels.
Balderdash, on 03 April 2013 - 02:03 PM, said:
Got to love those Constitution protecting Republicans...
11-7. Oath or affirmation to support Constitutions; all officers to take.
Every member of the General Assembly and every person elected or appointed to hold any office of trust or profit in the State shall, before taking office or entering upon the execution of the office, take and subscribe to the following oath:
"I, ___________, do solemnly and sincerely swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States; that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the State of North Carolina, and to the constitutional powers and authorities which are or may be established for the government thereof; and that I will endeavor to support, maintain and defend the Constitution of said State, not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, to the best of my knowledge and ability; so help me God." (1781, c. 342, s. 1, P.R.; R.C., c. 76, s. 4; Code, s. 3312; Rev., s. 2358; C.S., s. 3194; 1985, c. 756, s. 5.)
I honestly have to say that I find AMPLE leeway in the reading of that oath, if taken in its entirety ourside the bolding to permit them to wholeheartedly support this action, even if I personally think the action itself is completely inappropriate and unlawful. In fact, I would say that the oath seems to have been *specifically* crafted to that interpretation. Re-read it and see if you don't agree.
Supporting the Constitution of the US is no contradiction to saying that the Constitution doesn't apply here [I happen to think it does]. I don't think ANY laws in Georgia apply to me (30+ years after I left), even if Georgia has some law saying they do. That's for the Supreme Court to decide -- and I'm not worried.
No more worried than I am about this measure. It's just political grandstanding and haymaking. TBH, I feel the same about the CT gun control law signed today. It's not like CT, one of the 1776 original colonies, just heard of the issue this year.