1,631
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 27:
Line 27: + + + + + + + + + +
Debate:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform? (view source)
Revision as of 02:11, January 16, 2007
, 02:11, January 16, 2007no edit summary
== No ==
== No ==
'''Comment on the Constitution:'''
Michael New sites article I section 9 of the constitution which says that “no person holding any office of profit or trust under [the United States], shall, without consent of congress, accept any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince or foreign state.”
The reason why Michael New’s argument fails to fit his citation of the constitution is the word ‘emolument’. According to Noah Webster’s dictionary, the word ‘emolument’ means “the profit arising from office or employment; that which is received as compensation for services.” The salary of the American soldiers on a UN peacekeeping mission is still paid by the US. Furthermore, it is by the order of the United States that they wear a UN uniform; Michael New was clearly not accepting emolument from the United Nations.
--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 21:11, 15 January 2007 (EST)