Text 10156, 170 rader
Skriven 2013-09-03 17:09:39 av Lee Lofaso (2:203/2)
  Kommentar till text 10146 av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
Ärende: USAian's strange take on their constitution
===================================================
Hello Roy,

 LL>> The President of the United States takes an oath to "protect and
 LL>> defend" the US Constitution. He is the only (elected or appointed)
 LL>> federal official to do so. All other federal officials (elected or
 LL>> appointed) merely take an oath to "uphold" the US Constitution.

 BF>> As far as my googling has ended me, the above is true.

RW>Stupid is as stupid says, I always say.

When it comes to politics, as they say in Texas, Witt is all hat,
no cattle.

 LL>> The US Constitution contains one oath of office, and one oath of
 LL>> office only - an oath of office for the president.

RW>It does? Section please.

Article II, Section I, Clause VII.

RW>Here  is what the Constitution provides for by law.

RW>3331 - Oath of office

RW>US Code, Title 5, Part III, Subpart B, Chapter 33:

Not found in US Constitution.

RW>This section does not affect other oaths required by law.

No section of US Code affects oaths (or other oaths) in the US
Constitution, as the US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

 LL>> For all other (federal) government officials, INCLUDING MEMBERS OF
 LL>> CONGRESS, the only thing the US Constitution specifies is that they
 LL>> "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support the Constitution."

RW>Actually, the Congressional oath is prescribed by law:

Do you know what the Supreme Law of the Land is?  I just told you,
so you should know it by now.  Or do I have to repeat myself?

RW>At the start of each new Congress, the entire House of
RW>Representatives and one-third of the Senate are sworn into office.

Of course they are, as required by the US Constitution.  Your point
(if you have one)?

Here is what you seem to be missing -

The oath itself (aside from the oath of office for president) is not
specifically spelled out in the US Constitution.  The method for taking
such an oath is also not spelled out in the US Constitution.  But all
members are "bound by Oath or Affirmation to support the Constutiton."

RW>Federal employees take the same oath of office as Congress, by
RW>which they swear to support and defend the Constitution of the
RW>United States of America.

Again, such oaths are not spelled out in the US Constitution.

RW>But we regress.

You regress.  I am merely trying to bring you up to speed.
I did say trying.  Not that I would necessarily succeed.  ;)

RW>You claimed that no one but the President swears to uphold
RW>or defend the Constitution, which is a bald faced lie.

Nope.  The President does not swear or affirm to uphold or defend
the Constitution.  The President swears or affirms to defend the
Constitution.  Not to merely uphold the Constitution.  There is a
difference.

The Constitution mandates the President to do so.  The Constitution
makes no such mandate on anybody else.

 LL>> every individual take an oath of office?  Or should it be proclaimed
 LL>> en masse?  Hmmm.  The US Constitution does not say ...

RW>Read it again, it actually spells out who will take the Oath of
RW>office, which is defined by US Code.

The US Code is NOT the US Constitution.
The US Code is NOT the Supreme Law of the Land.

If you want members of Congress to take an oath of office to "defend"
the US Constitution, then pass an amendment to the US Constitution!

 BF>> But, alas, they only know what their mainstream media tells them in
 BF>> the "News Shows" they happen to prefer.

 LL>> If the Framers of the Constitution had intended for all federal
 LL>> officials to take the same oath of office, or a specific oath of
 LL>> office, that oath of office would have been included in the US
 LL>> Constitution.

RW>Not necessarily; in 1789, the 1st United States Congress created a
RW>fourteen-word oath to fulfill the constitutional requirement:

RW>"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the
RW>Constitution of the United States."

Why did the Congress do that?  Because the Framers of the
Constitution deliberately left out such an oath from being
included in the Consitution.  Why did the Congress choose
to pass a law, rather than pass and ratify an amendment to
the Constitution?  Because not all members of Congress thought
that taking an oath of office was a good idea.  Or maybe they
did, as long as they could write the oath themselves.

Notice the wording the Congress chose.  No mention of the word
"defend".  Members of Congress left it up to the president to
"preserve, protect and defend" the US Constitution, wanting
nothing to do with having that responsibility for themselves.

RW>It also passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, which established an
RW>additional oath taken by federal judges.

So what?  The Judiciary Act of 1789 is not part of the US Constitution.
The Framers of the Constitution were aware of the idea of having federal
judges, as well as justices of the US Supreme Court.  Had the Framers
wanted to include an oath of office, with specific wording, they would
have included it in the US Constitution.  But they didn't.  This was
not an oversight, but a deliberate act.

 LL>> Likewise in reference to amendments, as none have been added dealing
 LL>> with the issue of oaths of office.

RW>None are required, as the issue of who will take the Oath was
RW>settled in 1789 and again in 1865...

You really do have a revisionist view of history ...

 BF>> And, after all, they have a presidential (GWB) decree that it's
 BF>> nothing but a piece of paper after all.

 LL>> Bill O'Reilly did *NOT* say that!  So it must *NOT* be true!

RW>Neither did GW...

How do you know?  Were you there?

 LL>> Besides, the original document is not a piece of paper.  Even
 LL>> though Roy Witt might like to tell you otherwise.  ;)

RW>Parchment is a type of paper...

Not really.

 BF>> Please Lee, keep on informing us aliens, and disregard any
 BF>> obstructive insults from a few brainwashed countrymen of yours.
 BF>> The rest of us out here in Fidonet are fairly aware of what may
 BF>> be true and what not.

 LL>> "I caught a fish T-H-I-S big!"  <holding arms wide apart>

 LL>> Now go ahead.  Top that.  If you can.  :)

RW>I caught a lewseeana sucker...he has very large lips, just like a
RW>high yeller nigger.

You been watchin' far too many episodes of "Duck Dynasty" and
"Swamp People."

--Lee

--- MesNews/1.06.00.00-gb
 * Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)