Or is he just Constitutionally illiterate?
I mean, I’m a Canadian, and not a Constitutional scholar by any stretch, but I have a pretty good grip on the basics.
Like, for example, the First Amendment, which reads in part
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Seems pretty straight forward to me, and I talk about it in the latest In Bed With RightGirl, which you should have already listened to (ahem).
However, the man named after a lizard seems to think that the Establishment Clause is just a suggestion that can be ignored at will.
Newt Gingrich, the Republican former speaker of the House of Representatives, who is thought likely to make a run for president, has warned that Muslims are attempting to impose sharia law in the US and that it poses a “mortal threat to freedom” in America.
Gingrich said that he would push for legislation to prevent states from adopting sharia law even though none are proposing it and there is no likely prospect of it happening.
What, exactly, is the point of that legislation? The Establishment Clause already has that potential problem sewn up and dealt with. No state can adopt Sharia law, because it’s unconstitutional. ‘Nuff said.
Look, I like Newt, and his Contract With America was one of the greatest moments in American politics. But banning sharia at the state or federal level is unnecessary. It’s already banned - as is Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism or any other major religious doctrine.
There are better fights to pick, Newt old chap.