The Oath of Congress -- Thanks for the Lecture

[ChezC3]

I find it very troublesome that a member of Congress when being reminded of the Oath they took swearing to uphold the Constitution would be so apathetic to make such a remark. Listen closely at 00:20 mark.


It really is a testament to why we are in such a sorry state. It's like the majority in Congress look at the Constitution as an obstacle to their agenda instead of upholding the Constitution when creating legislation being their agenda.

 

[APACHERAT]

I find it very troublesome that a member of Congress when being reminded of the Oath they took swearing to uphold the Constitution would be so apathetic to make such a remark. Listen closely at 00:20 mark.


It really is a testament to why we are in such a sorry state. It's like the majority in Congress look at the Constitution as an obstacle to their agenda instead of upholding the Constitution when creating legislation being their agenda.

What do you exactly find to be troublesome ChezC3 ?

What I find is that President Obama, Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano and many others with in the Obama administration are apathetic and have ignored the "oath" of office they took to uphold and defend the Constitution.

 

[Fiddytree]

I find it very troublesome that a member of Congress when being reminded of the Oath they took swearing to uphold the Constitution would be so apathetic to make such a remark. Listen closely at 00:20 mark.


It really is a testament to why we are in such a sorry state. It's like the majority in Congress look at the Constitution as an obstacle to their agenda instead of upholding the Constitution when creating legislation being their agenda.

They dismiss the remark because it came from a younger upstart who has just joined the Senate and is seen as acting presumptuous.

 

[Muddy Creek]

I find it very troublesome that a member of Congress when being reminded of the Oath they took swearing to uphold the Constitution would be so apathetic to make such a remark. Listen closely at 00:20 mark.


It really is a testament to why we are in such a sorry state. It's like the majority in Congress look at the Constitution as an obstacle to their agenda instead of upholding the Constitution when creating legislation being their agenda.

What a hypocrite. He has been against every civil right action contained within the constitution and upheld by the Supreme Court. And he even said that the constitution supports the gun laws in Heller. And now he twists and turns the constitution to suit his corporate agenda.

 

[ChezC3]

They dismiss the remark because it came from a younger upstart who has just joined the Senate and is seen as acting presumptuous.

acting presumptious? :lamo

there is a waiting period I suppose before it becomes acceptably part and parcel...

 

[ChezC3]

What do you exactly find to be troublesome ChezC3 ?

What I find is that President Obama, Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano and many others with in the Obama administration are apathetic and have ignored the "oath" of office they took to uphold and defend the Constitution.

Oh me oh my, so formal, we're old friends you and I, a simple "C3" will do...:wink2:

The blatent disdain. That's what has me so troubled. They don't just ignore, they're beginning to openly mock.

 

[ChezC3]

What a hypocrite. He has been against every civil right action contained within the constitution and upheld by the Supreme Court. And he even said that the constitution supports the gun laws in Heller. And now he twists and turns the constitution to suit his corporate agenda.

I'm not familiar with his crusade against civil rights, mind pointing me in the right direction?

 

[Fiddytree]

acting presumptious? :lamo

there is a waiting period I suppose before it becomes acceptably part and parcel...

Is that news to you?

 

[ChezC3]

Is that news to you?

Tell ya what, I'm as cynincal as the next guy, my point isn't about presumption, it is about the open disdain that is shown. It is about the complete lack of comportment. It is about pointing out the seemingly irrelavent off-handed remark and demonstrating that there is a bigger problem that needs to be seriously addressed. I give a rat's barn about what any of these dandy's presume, what they feel they've earned, or what they think they're entitled to. I care about the apathetic nature of our elected officials to the Constitution and the cynical and apathetic nature of the electoral population to the sense of entitlement and beyond reproach behavior those elected officials display when they go about their merry day doing as they damn well please.

 

[Fiddytree]

Tell ya what, I'm as cynincal as the next guy, my point isn't about presumption, it is about the open disdain that is shown. It is about the complete lack of comportment. It is about pointing out the seemingly irrelavent off-handed remark and demonstrating that there is a bigger problem that needs to be seriously addressed. I give a rat's barn about what any of these dandy's presume, what they feel they've earned, or what they think they're entitled to. I care about the apathetic nature of our elected officials to the Constitution and the cynical and apathetic nature of the electoral population to the sense of entitlement and beyond reproach behavior those elected officials display when they go about their merry day doing as they damn well please.

That's the point. The remark was not about being indifferent to the Constitution, but rather the presumption on behalf of a newcomer like Cruz that they do not take their oath seriously.

 

[ChezC3]

That's the point. The remark was not about being indifferent to the Constitution, but rather the presumption on behalf of a newcomer like Cruz that they do not take their oath seriously.

The point is he shouldn't be having to lecture on following the Constitution.

 

[Master PO]

The point is he shouldn't be having to lecture on following the Constitution.

certainly you have seen politicians stand on the floor of the house and talk about slavery, the great depression, and many other things.

nothing bars him from speaking his mind when its his turn to speak...unless he violates senate rules, and he is not doing that.

 

[ChezC3]

certainly you have seen politicians stand on the floor of the house and talk about slavery, the great depression, and many other things.

nothing bars him from speaking his mind when its his turn to speak...unless he violates senate rules, and he is not doing that.

I think you're picking a fight where there is none to be had.

I applaud Sen Cruz for speaking his mind. It is precisely more of what Sen. Cruz has been saying that we need to be hearing from our politicians.

The need for his "lecture" is what I'm getting at. There shouldn't be a need because each and every member of Congress should be saying, believing, and following what Cruz is "lecturing" them on, already, from day 1.

The fact that he is "lecturing" them, the fact that they need to be reminded is evidence enough for me to see that they aren't doing their jobs, that they aren't looking after their constituents, the American People, and are following an agenda that is not what our country was founded on and in direct opposition to the oath they spoke when they took office.

 

[AllanHampton]

The fact that he is "lecturing" them, the fact that they need to be reminded is evidence enough for me to see that they aren't doing their jobs, that they aren't looking after their constituents, the American People, and are following an agenda that is not what our country was founded on and in direct opposition to the oath they spoke when they took office.

I like your post, elected Officials laws are in opposition to the Oath they took, but are you sure about "looking after their constituents, the American People", is that part of the Oath?

 

[ChezC3]

I like your post, elected Officials laws are in opposition to the Oath they took, but are you sure about "looking after their constituents, the American People", is that part of the Oath?

Well, let's take a looksee...

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


What's the duties of office? To be a representative of and an advocate for the interests of the people who elected them, right?

So, yeah, I think it would be safe to say...

 

[AllanHampton]

Well, let's take a looksee...

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


What's the duties of office? To be a representative of and an advocate for the interests of the people who elected them, right?

So, yeah, I think it would be safe to say...

I believe that Oath you posted is the Oath the President takes and he cannot legislate (Article I, Section 1).

Represent the people that elected them? I think not necessary if voters did not elect the Official to honor the Oath. The only legitimate, constitutional, interest of the people is for all elected Officials to honor the Oath. Officials cannot be properly seated in office without being sworn in, the Oath or affirm.

Here is the "Official's", Lawmakers & Judges, Oath which they must take; Article VI, Clause 3. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Recon that last sentence indicates a vote for a Candidate on his position on a political issue or religious belief would be constitutionally correct?

 

[ChezC3]

I believe that Oath you posted is the Oath the President takes and he cannot legislate (Article I, Section 1).

Represent the people that elected them? I think not necessary if voters did not elect the Official to honor the Oath. The only legitimate, constitutional, interest of the people is for all elected Officials to honor the Oath. Officials cannot be properly seated in office without being sworn in, the Oath or affirm.

Here is the "Official's", Lawmakers & Judges, Oath which they must take; Article VI, Clause 3. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Recon that last sentence indicates a vote for a Candidate on his position on a political issue or religious belief would be constitutionally correct?

Federal Executive and Legislative Branch OathsIn the United States, the oath of office for the President is specified in the Constitution (Article II, Section 1):

"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."[60]
The oath may be sworn or affirmed (in which case it is called an affirmation instead of oath). Although not present in the text of the Constitution, it is customary for modern presidents to say "So help me God" after the end of the oath. For officers other than the President, the expression "So help me God" is explicitly prescribed, but the Judiciary Act of 1789 also explains when it can be omitted (specifically for oaths taken by court clerks): "Which words, so help me God, shall be omitted in all cases where an affirmation is admitted instead of an oath."[61]

The Constitution (Article VI, clause 3) also specifies:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
At the start of each new U.S. Congress, in January of every odd-numbered year, newly elected or re-elected Members of Congress – the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate – must recite an oath:

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.][62]


This oath is also taken by the Vice President, members of the Cabinet, federal judges and all other civil and military officers and federal employees other than the President.

Oath of office - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Looks like the Oath of Congress to me...

 

[AllanHampton]

Oath of office - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Looks like the Oath of Congress to me...

Read them more carefully, the President's Oath is different than Congress, State Officials and all judges. My copies are from the 1787 Constitution and legislation or acts nor the entire federal government can amend the Constitution; reference Article V.

Article II, Section I, Clause 9. Before he (President) enter on the Execution of his Office, He shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:- "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."

Article VI, Clause 3. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. (NOTE "this" is the 1787 Constitution.)

Recon that last sentence indicates a vote for a Candidate on his position on a political issue or religious belief would be constitutionally correct?

 

[ChezC3]

Read them more carefully, the President's Oath is different than Congress, State Officials and all judges. My copies are from the 1787 Constitution and legislation or acts nor the entire federal government can amend the Constitution; reference Article V.

Article II, Section I, Clause 9. Before he (President) enter on the Execution of his Office, He shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:- "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."

Article VI, Clause 3. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. (NOTE "this" is the 1787 Constitution.)

Recon that last sentence indicates a vote for a Candidate on his position on a political issue or religious belief would be constitutionally correct?

Let's take this back a step, I'm not sure I'm catching your intent. Would you rephrase the question or is this a new question seperate from our original?

As for the original the intent of elected representitives is to represent the people, they do this under the authority of the Constitution and are constrained there within to which they've sworn by oath to support or uphold. You were saying they aren't bound by oath to look after their constituents, right?

 

[AllanHampton]

You were saying they aren't bound by oath to look after their constituents, right?

Yes, elected Officials are not bound by Oath, or anything else, to look after their constituents.

I said all elected officials and all judges are bound by Oath to "support" the 1787 Constitution; reference Article VI, clause 3.

Also, I was trying to say elected Officials are not bound by the people's wants, wishes, will, or demands; reference Article V.

The President's Oath does not use the word support and the citizenry's vote does not elect a President and never has; reference Amendment 12.

"Constitutionally" the only federal Officials the citizenry's vote elects are Representatives; reference Article I, Section 2, clause 1.

 

[ChezC3]

Yes, elected Officials are not bound by Oath, or anything else, to look after their constituents.

I said all elected officials and all judges are bound by Oath to "support" the 1787 Constitution; reference Article VI, clause 3.

Also, I was trying to say elected Officials are not bound by the people's wants, wishes, will, or demands; reference Article V.

The President's Oath does not use the word support and the citizenry's vote does not elect a President and never has; reference Amendment 12.

"Constitutionally" the only federal Officials the citizenry's vote elects are Representatives; reference Article I, Section 2, clause 1.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The People ordained and established the Constitution. Why? to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for the People of that time and their posterity i.e. you and me.

If they are bound to support it, then they are bound to look after their constituents interests because their constituents are the posterity of the People who ordained and established the Constitution. Whim, wish, etc. etc. so long as they fit into those 6 catagories described, it is their duty by oath I would say because by oath they are to support Constitution and the Constitution itself is the People's interests made manifest.

 

[AllanHampton]

Ok, now we're getting somewhere


If they are bound to support it, then they are bound to look after their constituents interests because their constituents are the posterity of the People who ordained and established the Constitution. Whim, wish, etc. etc. so long as they fit into those 6 catagories described, it is their duty by oath I would say because by oath they are to support Constitution and the Constitution itself is the People's interests made manifest.

Yes, Officials are bound to support the "1787 Constitution" and nowhere in that Constitution is any wording remotely connected to looking after constituents.

The Preamble states what "We, the People" want government to do but does not explain how to do it. The 1787 Constitution delegates powers to accomplish what we, the people, of 1787 want government to do and the Posterity cannot amend the 1787 Constitution; Article V.

Can you support your claim that government Officials are delegated a power to look after constituents?

 

[ChezC3]

Yes, Officials are bound to support the "1787 Constitution" and nowhere in that Constitution is any wording remotely connected to looking after constituents.

The Preamble states what "We, the People" want government to do but does not explain how to do it. The 1787 Constitution delegates powers to accomplish what we, the people, of 1787 want government to do and the Posterity cannot amend the 1787 Constitution; Article V.

Can you support your claim that government Officials are delegated a power to look after constituents?

I just did, a government whose authority is derived from the governed is always going to have representatives whose sole purpose is to represent the interests of the people they are representing.(in theory anyhow)

It isn't We The People want government to do by the way, the People are the government Readthe preamble again it is the People who are ordaining and establishing, they're not asking the government to...

 

[AllanHampton]

I just did, a government whose authority is derived from the governed is always going to have representatives whose sole purpose is to represent the interests of the people they are representing.(in theory anyhow)

It isn't We The People want government to do by the way, the People are the government Readthe preamble again it is the People who are ordaining and establishing, they're not asking the government to...

Better study the Constitution because you are terribly confused. The Preamble isn't law and we, the people, are not government. We, the people, can't make a law; reference Article I, Section 1, Clause 1. "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

Derived from the governed - under the Constitution who is the governed? It ain't we, the People, that is governed by the federal government.

 

[Trip]

Yes, Officials are bound to support the "1787 Constitution" and nowhere in that Constitution is any wording remotely connected to looking after constituents.

The Preamble states what "We, the People" want government to do but does not explain how to do it. The 1787 Constitution delegates powers to accomplish what we, the people, of 1787 want government to do and the Posterity cannot amend the 1787 Constitution; Article V.

Can you support your claim that government Officials are delegated a power to look after constituents?

You keep saying the "1787 Constitution", and then started putting it into quotes, and referencing it as if there were more than one.

There's only one Constitution, and it is referred to as "the United States Constitution" or "the Constitution", and not the "1787 Constitution. " Reference to the "1787 Constitution" implies that there might be some other Constitution, and there is not one, there is no need for this reference, other than to sew confusion.