Saturday, March 29, 2008

Constitutional Question



Amendment XIV, section 3 reads:


No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid and comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each house, remove such disability.

I would hardly call the hateful drivel of Rev. Jeramiah Wright, and the tolerance and acceptance of his remarks by Senator Obama, et al, an insurrection. But it is rebellion, is it not?

The Rev. Wright is certainly allowed to hold and express anti-American sentiment if he wishes. He is a private citizen. But he has a certain position of authority and influence over his congregation, who obviously agree with him. Senator Obama's 20-year association with Rev. Wright- marriages, baptisms, regular Sunday attendance- reflect his tacit approval of, and implied agreement with (aid and comfort?) the Rev. Wright. Senator Obama is a public offical who has taken oath(s) of office.

Senator Obama has neither distanced himself from, nor has he denounced sufficiently, the anti-American sentiment of Rev. Wright. To the contrary, he has only dug himself deeper into the hole of his own making by his failure to make a complete and unequivocal break from Rev. Wright and his “church.”

“Unfit for Command” should be stamped across the front of his personnel jacket in big red letters.

4 comments:

Smallholder said...

It is not.

Rebellion means bearing arms against the central government.

Wright's remarks don't even qualify as incitement because they don't press for immediate illegal action.

That said, the Reverend Wright's remarks are ignorant, harmful (to both his constituents and America as a whole), and ought to be condemned.

It is quite legitimate to ask why Obamna countenanced membership in a hatemongering church. The closest analogy would be questioning a white politician about membership in the Church of the White Creator.

Polymath said...

What about an Italian who worships the Spaghetti Monster?

Smallholder said...

Do NOT mock the Spaghetti Monster, lest He touch you with his noodly appendage.

Polymath said...

Nay, I mock not.