anaxarchos
04-08-2009, 12:16 AM
It reads:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
...as specified in the U.S. Constitution (Article Two, Section One, Clause Eight).
The Congressional Oath, also taken by the Vice President, reads:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."
The principle is as simple as the oath. In a Constitutional Republic which is not a Democracy and therefore has no direct mechanism for the intervention of the people, the principle of the oath forms the sole "connection" between government and the governed, as Rousseau might say. In the simplest terms, the laws as written take precedence over the whims, desires, and priorities of those who hold office and the office holders affirm the primacy of those existing laws above all other duties and responsibilities. There really is nothing else.
Over the life of the Republic, the obvious weaknesses of the Constitution and the prevailing Laws have been made abundantly clear, yet this "fundamental" principle was still advanced as sacrosanct. In turn, office holders have had the good manners to lie, cheat, and steal in private. When such issues were brought to light, the most elaborate arguments were made as to why no violation of the ONLY PRINCIPLE had really taken place. This held even through the Civil War and held even to the Confederacy which argued to the bitter end as to why no principled violation had actually occurred. And, that principle has held ever since...
...until now.
In short order, over the last seven years, a President of the United States has decided to openly violate the Laws of the United States, the elected Congressional Representatives of both the President's and the opposition political parties have openly decided not to challenge that violation, and a new President of the opposition party has affirmed and extended that violation. Virtually the entire government and all of its "checks and balances" have opted to simply ignore the law... and this, without ambiguity, citing what is at best, "inconvenience".
This is something new...
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
...as specified in the U.S. Constitution (Article Two, Section One, Clause Eight).
The Congressional Oath, also taken by the Vice President, reads:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."
The principle is as simple as the oath. In a Constitutional Republic which is not a Democracy and therefore has no direct mechanism for the intervention of the people, the principle of the oath forms the sole "connection" between government and the governed, as Rousseau might say. In the simplest terms, the laws as written take precedence over the whims, desires, and priorities of those who hold office and the office holders affirm the primacy of those existing laws above all other duties and responsibilities. There really is nothing else.
Over the life of the Republic, the obvious weaknesses of the Constitution and the prevailing Laws have been made abundantly clear, yet this "fundamental" principle was still advanced as sacrosanct. In turn, office holders have had the good manners to lie, cheat, and steal in private. When such issues were brought to light, the most elaborate arguments were made as to why no violation of the ONLY PRINCIPLE had really taken place. This held even through the Civil War and held even to the Confederacy which argued to the bitter end as to why no principled violation had actually occurred. And, that principle has held ever since...
...until now.
In short order, over the last seven years, a President of the United States has decided to openly violate the Laws of the United States, the elected Congressional Representatives of both the President's and the opposition political parties have openly decided not to challenge that violation, and a new President of the opposition party has affirmed and extended that violation. Virtually the entire government and all of its "checks and balances" have opted to simply ignore the law... and this, without ambiguity, citing what is at best, "inconvenience".
This is something new...