It looks like Barrett

[WuWei]

Never underestimate the stupidity of a US politician.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

There’s also the issue of the Speech and Debate clause, although the precedent there is cloudy. The Federal Tort Claims Act, as well, could come into play.

[NJBob]

@WuWei

Never underestimate the stupidity of a US politician.

Or the voters that elect them.

[Ben_Natuf]

and yet we have ss. enacted under the welfare clause after fdr changed what it meant to “provide for the general welfare of the united states”. which did not mean take money from some people and gift it to others.

[Ben_Natuf]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@Ben_Natuf

the fact that it may or may not have been understood to mean one thing to some people does not mean it meant the same thing to all people.

It does not matter what it means to people.

That’s not how this works.

whp else would have understood it to mean anything? cats?

[NebraskaFootball]

@WuWei

Never underestimate the stupidity of a US politician.

[WuWei]

[tzu]

This is not a good read. Hamilton’s interpretation went into effect immediately.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Ben_Natuf

and yet we have ss. enacted under the welfare clause after fdr changed what it meant to “provide for the general welfare of the united states”. which did not mean take money from some people and gift it to others.

Social Security was not “enacted under the [general] welfare clause.”

None of the legal challenges to Social Security were determined based on the “general welfare clause”.

The Social Security program itself has never been challenged in the Court, and clearly falls under the Taxing and Spending clause.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

I’m fairly certain you missed the point.

[Ben_Natuf]

@WuWei

The more difficult question by extension you are invoking has not been addressed - is there a prohibition on taking a set of religious views into account when determining suitability for office?

this is in fact my point. i see no way anyone could not consider this a religious test. having no religious test required to hold office does not to me mean just not having a requirement to adhere to any specific religion, it also means you cannot be precluded due to adherance to same. questioning a persons views on thier faith is an attempt to preclude based on adherance to a religion. the clause covers that

[Ben_Natuf]

lol. ss was twice declared unconstitutional. its why fdr threatened to pack the courts

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Ben_Natuf

having no religious test required to hold office does not to me mean just not having a requirement to adhere to any specific religion, it also means you cannot be precluded due to adherance to same.

This is not an accurate statement.

It is arguable that explicit preclusion could be prohibited by the 14th or the CRA.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

This is at least partially true.

But the general welfare clause was not part of the decision.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Ben_Natuf

questioning a persons views on thier faith is an attempt to preclude based on adherance to a religion.

No, it isn’t.

If an employer requests a photo attached to the resume, does that equal “an attempt” to preclude employment based on race?

[WuWei]

Or age?

I don’t think that’s relevant to the discussion at hand.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

It is relevant, in the context of demonstrating that the CRA essentially only applies to overt and explicit discrimination, rather than possibility of discrimination.

[WuWei]

@TheDoctorIsIn

It is relevant, in the context of demonstrating that the CRA essentially only applies to overt and explicit discrimination, rather than possibility of discrimination.

We are talking about government employees and suitability for office. I don’t think it is relevant.

[NebraskaFootball]

@WuWei

Trumpers can’t meme.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

Actually, I believe it is more accurate to describe the thesis of this conversation as whether or not the Senate is allowed to ask a nominee about their faith, and secondarily, whether or not individual Senators are within their rights to vote no based on the nominees proclaimed faith.

Framing the conversation as such, I believe the function and application of the Civil Rights Act are, in fact, relevant.