By Douglas V. Gibbs
A few Thursdays ago in the Temecula Constitution Class that I lead one of the attendees, after I finished speaking on Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, asked about the language regarding the requirements for becoming a Representative in the House of Representatives. He explained that the way a section of the Constitution was worded, it made it look like it was saying the opposite of what I claimed it said.
The portion he was pointing out was where it says, ". . . who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."
The gentleman said to me that it sounded like, to him, that the wording said that Representatives should actually not be inhabitants of the States they represent.
The first response to any kind of inquiry like that must always be, "Read the entire clause."
Over a year ago a liberal left reader left an interesting comment that kind of proves my point about the importance of reading the entire section, and making sure that all of the text is examined in context.
Neurotic Tom wrote:
I'm no expert on the bible, but I thought there was a lot of incest described in it as well. Who was the biblical character that fornicated with his daughters? Of course, you believe the story of Noah's ark is literally true, and so there had to be a whole lot of incest going on after they hit dry land as well. Right? How did the world get repopulated 4 thousand years ago after the flood if it weren't for some hot daddy on daughter humping? I've never burned a bible because I consider it a waste of money to buy one to burn. Once you burn a book, you give the ideas contained in it more power. It's much better to just ignore it.. whether it is the OT, the NT, the Torah, the Koran, or any looney toon mystical tomb of the Magical Sky Wizard. It's all exactly the same made up hooey.. a con job of epic proportions, which does nothing but divide and enslave humanity. So Barnhardt received "death threats"? It's just like you, right Doug? You took your brave stand against islam by on Koran Burner Ann Barnhardt
In the comment Tom refers to two Biblical events without fully understanding the whole story. In his case, however, I can't just tell him to read the whole story, or Bible, first, because he won't.
Regarding his comment about Noah, Noah was not alone on the ark. Along with Noah was his wife, his sons, and their wives. Therefore, despite Tom's sexual yearnings for disgusting sexual situations (he is gay, after all, and so his whole lifestyle is about sexuality - it's like an addiction that he can't control), there was no "daddy on daughter" anything going on. Tom's error reveals his ignorance about the Bible.
Which brings us to the initial part of his comment on the Bible. He referred to a situation, after admitting he is no expert on the Bible, where a biblical character fornicated with his daughters. The story he is referring to is regarding Lot, and his two daughters, after fleeing the destruction of Sodom and Gamorrah. Both cities were were destroyed for the evil immorality of those cities, which included homosexuality, and Lot's family was the only group of people in the city that had not succumbed to the abomination of sexual perversion.
Unable to let go of the lifestyle she was leaving behind, as the family fled from the cities that were in the process of being torched by fire and brimstone, Lot's wife looked back longingly at the destruction, and for her unrighteousness was turned to a pillar of salt. Lot and his daughters continued, hiding nearby in a cave. Fully convinced that the destruction was worldwide, Lot's daughters, concerned about repopulating the Earth, but knowing that Lot would never willingly defile his daughters, got their father drunk so as to have intercourse with him.
That section of the Bible is merely history, and it not literal doctrine. In other words, the story does not suggest that the Bible supports incestuous relations, as Tom is suggesting. The majority of the Bible is recorded history, making the Bible more of a history book than anything, and those portions are not doctrinal in a way a piece of religious literature like the Koran is.
Those who do not understand the Bible cannot comprehend the historical nature of the Bible, or how to recognize what is historical text, what is doctrinal teachings, what is prophecy, and so on and so forth. One has to read the Bible with the proper mindset, while understanding the context being presented, in order to properly recognize what the Bible is truly saying.
That gets us back to the Constitution. In many ways, the text of the Constitution is the same. One cannot take a small portion of the text and then interpret it to mean something. Doing that caused one of the attendees of my Constitution Class to think that Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution was saying the opposite of what it was.
The clause in question, which made him think it was saying that a person is expected not to be an inhabitant of the State in which they are to represent, is a part of a much larger clause, which begins with the words "No person." The clause is designed to explain the exclusive qualifications that must be met to serve in the House of Representatives. The words "No person" constitute the initial subject of the sentence, and applies to both parts of the clause. So, eliminating the first part of the clause, the clause could very well read, "No Person. . . shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."
"No Person. . . who shall not," with the pair of negatives, could as easily read, "All Persons. . . shall, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."
On a side note, notice that the Constitution does not require that the representative be a resident of the district in which he represents.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment