I do solemnly swear that I will support the --->
Senator's Oath of Office:
The First Congress, in 1789, reworked this requirement into a simple fourteen-word oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."
Link: HERE
How can these idiotic Senators/Congressmen, etc. take this oath then turn around and attack portions of the Constitution and attempt to change them (re: 2nd Amendment).
This is clearly a violation of their oath of office and they should be held accountable.
Agree?
The First Congress, in 1789, reworked this requirement into a simple fourteen-word oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."
Link: HERE
How can these idiotic Senators/Congressmen, etc. take this oath then turn around and attack portions of the Constitution and attempt to change them (re: 2nd Amendment).
This is clearly a violation of their oath of office and they should be held accountable.
Agree?
0
-
What I find funny is that it would be a crime for me to say what I wish would happen to them, but it's business as usual for them to say what they want to do to me.[xx(] 0 -
Unfortunately, support of the Constitution does not translate into blind adherence to one person or party's interpretation of it.
Their job is to create laws, and in doing so, directly or indirectly, work within the framework of the Constitution as they see it.
So, no, it's not criminal.
What is criminal, however, is their thieving, lying, backstabbing ways.
We've got a lot of rope to hang 'em all with; let's not go looking for any more.0 -
You think an oath means anything to most of those idiots? They lie for a living, what do they care. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Ba Sardo
Unfortunately, support of the Constitution does not translate into blind adherence to one person or party's interpretation of it.
Their job is to create laws, and in doing so, directly or indirectly, work within the framework of the Constitution as they see it.
So, no, it's not criminal.
What is criminal, however, is their thieving, lying, backstabbing ways.
We've got a lot of rope to hang 'em all with; let's not go looking for any more.
As many times as I've heard this, you would think I'd be getting used to it by now, but it still sickens and enrages me.
THE DOCUMENT IS WRITTEN IN ENGLISH. NO INTERPRETATION IS NEEDED. JUST DO WHAT IT SAYS!!!
In the United States we have thousands of people employed full time writing laws. Each one of those laws chips away at your freedom. Ever consider we might have enough laws???????????????0 -
quote:beneteau:
The First Congress, in 1789, reworked this requirement into a simple fourteen-word oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."
How can these idiotic Senators/Congressmen, etc. take this oath then turn around and attack portions of the Constitution and attempt to change them (re: 2nd Amendment).
This is clearly a violation of their oath of office and they should be held accountable.
Welcome to the real world.
Politicians lie. They always have
and always will.
... that's what they do.
May as well expect pigs to fly.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Ba Sardo
Unfortunately, support of the Constitution does not translate into blind adherence to one person or party's interpretation of it.
Their job is to create laws, and in doing so, directly or indirectly, work within the framework of the Constitution as they see it.
So, no, it's not criminal.
What is criminal, however, is their thieving, lying, backstabbing ways.
We've got a lot of rope to hang 'em all with; let's not go looking for any more.
I've gotta agree with you on this. And, I have to disagree with JamesRK when he says it is written in plain English. Unfortunately, when you have has-been lawyers that are able to twist the definition of the word is into something other than a classic definition, then the whole language is up for grabs with regard to legal interpretation.0 -
quote:
In the United States we have thousands of people employed full time writing laws. Each one of those laws chips away at your freedom. Ever consider we might have enough laws???????????????
+1!!!!! We (the good old U.S.A.) cannot or WILL NOT even enforce many of the laws already on the books. If these jokers want to do something really constructive, LOL!, clean up the junk already on the books, so everyone knows and understands where they stand.0 -
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
I've gotta agree with you on this. And, I have to disagree with JamesRK when he says it is written in plain English. Unfortunately, when you have has-been lawyers that are able to twist the definition of the word is into something other than a classic definition, then the whole language is up for grabs with regard to legal interpretation.
If you have a rule which you can change the meaning of at will, you have no rule. This is what is know as "A Living Document". The U. S. Constitution has a built-in system for changing the rules. When you want to change the Constitution, it should be amended, not interpreted.
Too much interpretation of anything leads to statements like "it depends on what the meaning of is is.
By the way, the meaning of is is is.0 -
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
I've gotta agree with you on this. And, I have to disagree with JamesRK when he says it is written in plain English. Unfortunately, when you have has-been lawyers that are able to twist the definition of the word is into something other than a classic definition, then the whole language is up for grabs with regard to legal interpretation.
If you have a rule which you can change the meaning of at will, you have no rule. This is what is know as "A Living Document". The U. S. Constitution has a built-in system for changing the rules. When you want to change the Constitution, it should be amended, not interpreted.
Too much interpretation of anything leads to statements like "it depends on what the meaning of is is.
By the way, the meaning of is is is.
JamesRK,
In case we're misunderstanding each other, let me clarify here. I am disgusted whenever I hear the Constitution referred to as a living, breathing document. That's a load of horsecrap designed for liberals by liberals.
I agree 100% that the Constitution is to be amended, not interpreted. However, the purpose of SCOTUS is to make sure that the laws passed follow the guidelines stated in the Constitution.
Unfortunately, as men we are not perfect, and each of us has our own biases, whether or not we choose to admit to that fact is another story. So, when you have someone with their own agenda, and a creative lawyer can demonstrate that one word has multiple meanings and one of those meanings fits that agenda, "following the guidelines" becomes as blurred as the definition.
Which, BTW, is how come our country is as screwed up as it is today.
JMHO.0 -
Why would anyone take a job that only pays what their scale is if there wasn't something crooked going on? They pay CEO's like at General Motors in the neighborhood of $8,000,000 a year and the President of the US is supposedly only making $200,000 a year? Yeah right!
Smitty0 -
quote:Originally posted by Smitty500mag
Why would anyone take a job that only pays what their scale is if there wasn't something crooked going on? They pay CEO's like at General Motors in the neighborhood of $8,000,000 a year and the President of the US is supposedly only making $200,000 a year? Yeah right!
Smitty
Two reasons:
1. It is a power trip.
2. The money to be made is AFTER you leave office, not while you're in office.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
11 comments