Krauthammer Just Plain Wrong

Vincent J. Curtis

25 Sept 15

A few on the Democratic Left and many more, seemingly, on the Republican Right are down on Republican Presidential Candidate Dr. Ben Carson for his opposition to a Muslim becoming President of the United States.

All of them begin their criticism of Carson by quoting Article 6, Paragraph 3, of the U.S. Constitution, which contains the so-called No Religious Test Clause.  The usually sound Judge Andrew Napolitano, a Fox News senior judicial analyst, first pointed it out, and today the inestimable Charles Krauthammer weighed in against Carson on the same point.  This section appeared in the National Review Online:

“The latest example is Ben Carson, the mild-mannered, highly personable neurosurgeon and one of two highest-polling GOP candidates. He said on Sunday that a Muslim should not be president of the United States. His reason is that Islam is incompatible with the Constitution. On the contrary. Carson is incompatible with a Constitution that explicitly commands that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/424586/ben-carson-muslim-remarks-republicans”

It takes a Canadian to explain the United States Constitution to an American.  What these Americans pass over is Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8 of the Constitution, the Oath of Office of the President.  The closing passage reads, “…and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

No Muslim can truthfully take that oath.  Carson wins his point.  It is Napolitano and Krauthammer who are at sea.

A Muslim believes in Sharia Law, and Sharia Law is law made by Allah.  The U.S. Constitution is man-made law.  Since Allah-made law must be made to prevail over man-made law, the Muslim is morally obliged to affirm Sharia Law where it conflicts with the Constitution.

To be completely fair to Carson, he said that a Muslim should not be president and that he could not support one.  This is not the same as saying that a Muslim could not be president.  As a private American, Carson is not obligated to apply the Constitution, or somebody’s interpretation of the Constitution, to his opinions.  I’ll bet there are many Americans who believe that provision for gay marriage and abortion are not found in the Constitution despite what the Supreme Court has ruled.  So to pillory Carson for not being fully in accord in his opinions with the Constitution is just plain wrong.

-30-