Presidential “Oath of Office”?

This is the “oath” that each president recites in accordance with Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution (and I believe any elected/appointed government official) swears to, on a bible no less:

“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.”

Giving one’s oath is giving one’s word on something. The greatest test of a person’s character, in my opinion, is how true to his/her word he/she really is. I don’t know about you, but I actually expect, and hold, our elected officials to keeping their word/oath of office. Should they fail that, I can’t possibly trust them, let alone respect them. I’m not talking about not meeting promises made on the campaign trail, because we all know they’ll say things they think we want to hear to get our vote. I do however, expect them to live up to the oath they swear to.

I actually expect our president to be a beacon of light, a shining example, of the foundations this country was built on. I’m actually still naive enough to expect them to be honest and trustworthy. To represent our country in its best light. The current president has not done that, in fact the entire current administration, congress, senate, etc. have all failed miserably and have managed to totally destroy what little trust I had left for our government.

THIS sums up Bush’s true feelings about our country:

Bush on the Constitution: ‘It’s just a goddamned piece of paper’

Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.

Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper.”

And, to the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the shit that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that “goddamned piece of paper” used to guarantee.

To add insult to injury:

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the “Constitution is an outdated document.”

What I want to know is why NO ONE in Congress or any other branch of the government was disturbed enough by this to do something? Why are WE allowing our elected officials to continually condone via doing nothing, the shredding of our constitution.

There was something running around the internet, still is I believe, that we may as well just give our constitution to Irag since we’re not using it anymore. It would be funny if it weren’t so true.

WE the people, need to wake up!

Advertisements

~ by swfreedomlover on December 30, 2007.

16 Responses to “Presidential “Oath of Office”?”

  1. WaHOOOOOOOOOOO! Someone who sees the same things I do! I’ve been telling friends and family this for YEARS and no one believed me! Thank you for stating it so plainly! And Pelosi needs to be replaced ASAP! Taking the impeachment ability of We The People and saying it isn’t going to happen should have gotten HER thrown out. I’m for getting rid of everyone in the Congress, they aren’t doing their jobs, PERIOD! And Bush and Chaney should have been gone WELL before now. Those chickenshits in Congress have lost their balls!

  2. I forgot to mention that Bush and Chaney should have been convicted of war crimes when they invaded Iraq. They just want to add the oil money to their already vast sums. I guess for some people enough is never reached. And invading Iran should NOT even be a twinkle in their eyes. But these greedy gutless wonders know THEY will NEVER fight and die and We The People are just fodder for their war machine!

  3. It is an outdated document from the standpoint of constitutional law. You don’t study the Constitution in law school, you study all the court decisions that have brought us to our current, judicially-synthesized understanding of the Constitution. That’s usually two semesters worth of court decisions. It’s fairly apparent to anyone in government that you can’t argue the Constitution unless you’re prepared to argue the court decisions that interpret the Constitution to us and possibly to litigate claims based on the Constitution in the courts. In effect, the Constitution became an outdated document with the Marbury v. Madison decision of the Supreme Court. Deal with it.

  4. Then you believe the foundation of our Country is just a “goddamned piece of paper” too? How quaint.

  5. Then you believe the foundation of our Country is just a “goddamned piece of paper” too? How quaint. The basic premise of the Constitution is not outdated as far as I’m concerned. And it is the basics that are being destroyed. I don’t have to deal with anything, since the premise of this posting was the President LYING when he swore that oath.

  6. Unlike the religious world, where there exists an option to go back to the literal word of the Bible, there is no equivalent option with the Constitution. Unless you’re schoolchild, there’s no option to be a Constitutional fundamentalist. Another formulation of the concept is that the Constitution is a small chunk of what you’re taught in law school as Constitutional law. The rest is court decisions, and, like everything else in the law, study of court decisions tends to promote a sense of ambiguity and indeterminacy rather than fixed and firm principle.

    The Constitution hasn’t been the legal basis of government since the Supreme Court assumed the power of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison (1803). That’s 204 years of the Constitution’s having reverted to the status, as they say in the law, of a “dead letter.” Moreover, the Reconstruction Amendments after the Civil War are viewed by many as a complete refounding of the basis of government.

    The words of the Presidential oath are in the Constitution, but I’d argue that the courts have usurped the President’s role as its protector and defender. As for preserving the Constitution, that duty has long since been abandoned by all branches of government. That’s on a literal interpretation of the words. It would be sufficient to obtain your understanding of the Oath with the words “abide by the Constittion,” but it’s more likely that the wording of the oath was intended to mean that the President pledges himself to preserve, protect and defend the Nation founded under that Constitution.

    Constitutional fundamentalism is long dead, but reading remains fundamental.

  7. I’m not a lawyer or law student so I cannot argue this with you. However, when you swear to uphold and defend the Constitution and then turn around and dismantle it when convenient to you, that makes you a LIAR in my book. It shows your dishonesty and untrustworthiness.

    He uses the Constitution as it suits his purposes and when it doesn’t it suddenly just becomes a “goddamned piece of paper”. I can’t take anyone seriously who does that.

    It’s like religions. They all preach about love and peace, about God’s unconditional love, then put conditions on that love, and turn around and attack all who don’t believe as they do or agree with them. I call that hypocritical and bigoted. And again, I can’t take anyone seriously who does that.

    But that’s just me.

  8. Right, we all say we believe in the Constitution, but it’s just one of those white lies people in government tell. There is no Constitution, there’s just an enormous body of Constitutional jurisprudence, i.e., court decisions. And when you say you’re not a lawyer, you say you’re really not qualified to express an opinion, but you feel entitled to express an opinion. I’m not qualified to perform an option, but I feel entitled to cut holes in people.

    Ask a lawyer before you get all fundie about it.

  9. No, I said I’m not able to discuss it on that level. I am however, entitled to state MY opinion from where I sit.

    Fortunately, the First Amendment allows for free speech, allows people like you and me to express our personal points of view; which is why you are able to post your point of view here, even though I don’t agree with it, or necessarily understand it on your level.

    So let’s just agree to disagree, and enjoy greeting the New Year with the hope that things will start to change for the better.

  10. You assert the right to hold an opinion at your own level. I think that’s nothing different from asserting the right to believe any arbitrary thing irrespective of what it may signify or whether it’s justified in light of rational consideration.

    Free speech as contemplated in the 1st Amendment is rational discourse. It’s aspirational; all of us seek to hold an opinion that stands up in the light of reason. It’s not simply a matter of rolling the dice in your brain and then finding some language to suit the unfounded direction of your thoughts.

    Think what’s intended in free speech. If it is mere arbitrary opinion, then it does deserve to be ruthlessly suppressed. But if it’s intended as rational discourse, if it’s used as rational discourse, then it should be cherished.

  11. SWF,
    I found your site by wanting to reread the Presidential Oath. Note the “to the best of my ability” part. When a president is sworn that comes from the legal establishment or has done little research on his own, obviously his best ability is not what most of us expect.
    It takes many years of devoted research to learn the truth, I know.
    Do you ever get to Utah? I would love to talk in person. I’m not into online chatter.
    Thanks for your resources you have made available.

  12. Bob S., Thank you for your comment. I’m glad you enjoy what I post here. As for my getting to Utah? Nope. My roommate is from Utah and she just moved down here to Phoenix last September. I don’t do cold, and winter here is more cold than I like still….LOL However, if you ever get to Phoenix, do give a holler.

  13. I may be a little unsophisticated, but it seems to me that the lawyer guys above believe that only an elite group of trained lawyers knows the actual constitution of the nation, which is no longer the document taught to the public, but contained in a myriad adjustments and decisions made by the supreme court.

    It seems to me that a democratic nation populated by people who have no idea what the nation actually stands for or even the general rules used to govern, is just ludicrous. A boxcar full of monkeys could do just as well as a general election using these precepts.

    I guess that explains how megalomaniacs can seize power and attack their own people with impunity while stealing massive fortunes from the public.

    How very sad.

  14. Snitstorm,

    This is very sad indeed. The other problem is everyone thinking we are a democracy. We are not. What we are, as outlined by the Constitution, is a Constitutional Republic. In a democracy the mob rules, and our constitution guarantees that the rights of the majority do NOT step on the rights of the majority.

    Yes, there are some things where in a vote the majority rules, but that should not ever be the case when what is up for vote is nothing more than a preference of a group of people. Take the smoking bans for example. The states that put it on the ballot, shouldn’t have, for there was no doubt that the majority wouldd win that one. If I could find a lawyer (and afford it) I’d challenge the constitutionality of those bans in court.

  15. Regardless of anything, if Obama did not take the “proper and correct oath” in private afterwards he is still not the president by law.

    • Since this posting wasn’t about Obama to start with, your comment makes no sense. If I am correct, the Constitution makes NO mention of an oath having to be sworn before the elect becomes president.

      Edit: CNN reported today that Obama took the oath again today, since Chief Justice Roberts screwed it up yesterday, I believe Congress and he wanted it done right so there were NO questions about it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: