The Oath of Congress -- Thanks for the Lecture

[AllanHampton]

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.

The 1787 Constitution is the Constitution for the United States of America and the one all Officials and all Judges take an Oath to support; Article VI, clause 3, Note "this" in the wording of that Oath. "This" Constitution can be only the Constitution that was ratified in 1787 because there was no other Constitution for the United States of America in 1787. There were no amendments to the Constitution in 1787 and anything repugnant to that Constitution is null and void forevermore. So the Oath of Office in the 1787 Constitution does not obligate the oath takers to support any unconstitutional amendment or anything else that is contrary to that Constitution.

That is the reason I emphases the 1787 Constitution, to keep it pure and without corruption.

 

[Trip]

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 aren't just indifferent to the constitution, the treat it with disdain, and are hostile to it, the rights it guarantees and the limits it puts upon them.

To say they do not take their oath seriously is an understatement of enormous proportions.

 

[Trip]

The 1787 Constitution is the Constitution for the United States of America and the one all Officials and all Judges take an Oath to support; Article VI, clause 3, Note "this" in the wording of that Oath. "This" Constitution can be only the Constitution that was ratified in 1787 because there was no other Constitution for the United States of America in 1787. There were no amendments to the Constitution in 1787 and anything repugnant to that Constitution is null and void forevermore. So the Oath of Office in the 1787 Constitution does not obligate the oath takers to support any unconstitutional amendment or anything else that is contrary to that Constitution.

That is the reason I emphases the 1787 Constitution, to keep it pure and without corruption.

No, no, and furthermore no.

"This" Constitution references the Constitution of the United States, as opposed to the Constitution of South Africa, or some other Constitution.

When a person swears an oath to the Constitution, they are not referenced, nor referencing, to the time that the oath was written, into the Constitution, but to the Constitution in its complete and total form at the time the oath is taken.

This oath being in reference to the "1787 Constitution", prior to amendments, is pure idiocy of your own making, and has nothing to do with any truth.

Beyond that, I'm not sure what you're trying to insinuate, or attain, by "and anything repugnant to that Constitution is null and void forevermore"; are you trying to indicate that the Bill of Rights are "repugnant to the Constitution"? Given your previous intention to indulge in racism, I am guessing that you somehow find the Bill of RIghts "repugnant" to your ideology.

This claim is just insanely ignorant and stupid on an entirely astonishing level. The idea that each time an oath is made, the Constitution is "set backwards" somehow to its original unaltered form at 1787, simply because of the use of "this" in the oath, is a level of contortion and sophistry I've never seen attempted without a net.

 

[AllanHampton]

No, no, and furthermore no.

"This" Constitution references the Constitution of the United States, as opposed to the Constitution of South Africa, or some other Constitution.

When a person swears an oath to the Constitution, they are not referenced, nor referencing, to the time that the oath was written, into the Constitution, but to the Constitution in its complete and total form at the time the oath is taken.

This oath being in reference to the "1787 Constitution", prior to amendments, is pure idiocy of your own making, and has nothing to do with any truth.

Beyond that, I'm not sure what you're trying to insinuate, or attain, by "and anything repugnant to that Constitution is null and void forevermore"; are you trying to indicate that the Bill of Rights are "repugnant to the Constitution"? Given your previous intention to indulge in racism, I am guessing that you somehow find the Bill of RIghts "repugnant" to your ideology.

This claim is just insanely ignorant and stupid on an entirely astonishing level. The idea that each time an oath is made, the Constitution is "set backwards" somehow to its original unaltered form at 1787, simply because of the use of "this" in the oath, is a level of contortion and sophistry I've never seen attempted without a net.

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.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), is a landmark case in United States law and the basis for the exercise of judicial review of Federal statutes by the United States Supreme Court as a constitutional power. The Court ruled that it had the power to declare void a statute that it considered repugnant to the United States Constitution. Chief Justice John Marshall presided over the case, and used the case to legally establish the right of the judiciary—and in particular, the Supreme Court—to determine the constitutionality of the actions of coequal branches of government and thus laid the basis for the current power of the Supreme Court.—

Read more: Marbury v. Madison: Information from Answers.com

 

[Trip]

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.

Of course it is "this constitution", and *this* Constitution is the Constitution of the United States of America as it is now.

There is nothing about that oath, that would indicate those swearing by it are swearing an oath to the COnstitution frozen in time to its ratification in 1787! Such a belief is insane!

Furthermore, NO ONE who says that oath actually believes they are saying an oath only to the 1787 Constitution, unchanged! Your claim about the oath is something that has no bearing in theoretics, or in fact.

THere's nothing about the oath that involves it going back to only the 1787, un-amended Constitution. The Constitution we use today, amended in toto, is actually "this constitution." The reference to "this Constitution" actually differentiates it from someone swearing an oath to some other nation's Constitution.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), is a landmark case in United States law and the basis for the exercise of judicial review of Federal statutes by the United States Supreme Court as a constitutional power. The Court ruled that it had the power to declare void a statute that it considered repugnant to the United States Constitution. Chief Justice John Marshall presided over the case, and used the case to legally establish the right of the judiciary—and in particular, the Supreme Court—to determine the constitutionality of the actions of coequal branches of government and thus laid the basis for the current power of the Supreme Court.— Read more: Marbury v. Madison: Information from Answers.com

Yes, I've read Marbury v Madison, and I've written on it and lectured on it.

What bearing could Marbury actually have on this insane claim that the oath is referencing the unamended "1787 Constitution"?

And while we're at it, what would you believe to be the point of swearing an oath to the unamended 1787 Constitution?

 

[Perotista]

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.

that is the way things have been for quite a long time. Sometimes I even think some members on the SCOTUS also put their political agenda ahead of what exactly the constitution says in pretty plain English. They look for loop holes and a way to twist words, the original intent of the framers has been lost.

 

[AllanHampton]

Of course it is "this constitution", and *this* Constitution is the Constitution of the United States of America as it is now.

There is nothing about that oath, that would indicate those swearing by it are swearing an oath to the COnstitution frozen in time to its ratification in 1787! Such a belief is insane!

Furthermore, NO ONE who says that oath actually believes they are saying an oath only to the 1787 Constitution, unchanged! Your claim about the oath is something that has no bearing in theoretics, or in fact.

THere's nothing about the oath that involves it going back to only the 1787, un-amended Constitution. The Constitution we use today, amended in toto, is actually "this constitution." The reference to "this Constitution" actually differentiates it from someone swearing an oath to some other nation's Constitution.



Yes, I've read Marbury v Madison, and I've written on it and lectured on it.

What bearing could Marbury actually have on this insane claim that the oath is referencing the unamended "1787 Constitution"?

And while we're at it, what would you believe to be the point of swearing an oath to the unamended 1787 Constitution?

Those that can't read with comprehension need not worry about it.

 

[Risky Thicket]

Senator Cruz is the Oaf of Congress.

 

[Trip]

Those that can't read with comprehension need not worry about it.

Oh, I read the case just fine, and I understood the case and its implications too.

The problem here is that your far-flung, extremist interpretation of the oath has nothing to support it... not anywhere, most certainly not Marbury.

 

[AllanHampton]

Oh, I read the case just fine, and I understood the case and its implications too.

The problem here is that your far-flung, extremist interpretation of the oath has nothing to support it... not anywhere, most certainly not Marbury.

That's correct you don't understand and make no effort to do so.

 

[Trip]

That's correct you don't understand and make no effort to do so.

Oh I understand just fine. The problem is you cannot explain with any rationality how the oath might be referencing the un-amended 1787 Constitution, or why it would do so, any more than you can defend your profane racism.

 

[AllanHampton]

Oh I understand just fine. The problem is you cannot explain with any rationality how the oath might be referencing the un-amended 1787 Constitution, or why it would do so, any more than you can defend your profane racism.

The Founders explained it very well in the 1787 Constitution which is the body of the Constitution and the body does not contain any Amendments, SC decisions, or government legislation or Acts.

 

[ChezC3]

that is the way things have been for quite a long time. Sometimes I even think some members on the SCOTUS also put their political agenda ahead of what exactly the constitution says in pretty plain English. They look for loop holes and a way to twist words, the original intent of the framers has been lost.

I put little stock in the SCOTUS and feel the Founders made a mistake in how they set that particular branch up from the get go.

It just stuck in my craw that a person would be so insolent when another is reminding them of what they shouldn't need reminding of.

 

[notquiteright]

I put little stock in the SCOTUS and feel the Founders made a mistake in how they set that particular branch up from the get go. It just stuck in my craw that a person would be so insolent when another is reminding them of what they shouldn't need reminding of.

Very interesting, you admonish others to honor an oath to the Constitution, to abide by it and yet you openly criticize it and how it was set-up by the Founders, hallowed be their names, and as you put it... put little stock in the third major part of our Federal Government. It was deliberately created as a check to the lawmakers to ensure the Constitution was considered in all laws...

It struck me that a person could be so insolent as to think they are the bringer of light and truth when they barely sure where the bathroom is. :roll:

And FYI the other Senators don't need reminding of their responsibilities are under the Constitution, Cruz needs reminding the Supreme Court, not one of the most junior members of the Senate, has the final say in what passes Constitutional muster.

He was grandstanding for a clip we are sure to see if he decides to run for the Presidency. :doh

 

[Perotista]

I put little stock in the SCOTUS and feel the Founders made a mistake in how they set that particular branch up from the get go.

It just stuck in my craw that a person would be so insolent when another is reminding them of what they shouldn't need reminding of.

Judicial review was sort of a power grab by Chief Justice Marshall in 1801. The founders basically left it open as to whom would determine what is and what wasn't constitutional. Chief Justice Marshall took that power in the Maybury vs. Madison case, the other two branches of government didn't complain or take any action.

A lot of the papers and bio's left from when the constitution was written seems to indicate the states and the people would determine what was and wasn't constitutional. But there is just as many other who went back through English Law and tradition as to have the SCOTUS determine that. Thus I say it was really an open question not answered with some delegate believing one way and others the other.

Madison, Jefferson et. al thought the power to determine the constitutionality rested with the people and the states, most of the federalist didn't.

 

[AllanHampton]

The Supreme Court can't amend the Constitution (Article V) and to my knowledge has no power to enforce its decisions. Citizens can't amend the Constitution either but the citizenry has the final say on what the Constitution says and means and have the power to enforce its decisions but enforce only from within the context of the ballot and jury boxes.

The House (Representatives) have the sole power to impeach (Article I, Section 2, clause 5) and can impeach a Judge for bad behavior (Article III, Section I, clause 1).

 

[madman]

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.

Your bias slip is showing. Yea, BUSH/Raygun never trampled all over the constitution, but hey, let's not bring them up because that's old news, right?

 

[ChezC3]

Very interesting, you admonish others to honor an oath to the Constitution, to abide by it and yet you openly criticize it and how it was set-up by the Founders, hallowed be their names, and as you put it... put little stock in the third major part of our Federal Government. It was deliberately created as a check to the lawmakers to ensure the Constitution was considered in all laws...

It struck me that a person could be so insolent as to think they are the bringer of light and truth when they barely sure where the bathroom is. :roll:

And FYI the other Senators don't need reminding of their responsibilities are under the Constitution, Cruz needs reminding the Supreme Court, not one of the most junior members of the Senate, has the final say in what passes Constitutional muster.

He was grandstanding for a clip we are sure to see if he decides to run for the Presidency. :doh

Abso-freakin-lutely, want to know why? I'm not making laws, they are. I'm not trying to take away the 2nd Amendment, I'm exercising my 1st. Hallowed no, you've me mistaken. Flawed men, deeply flawed and the worst of the worst had the most influence.

It shocks me that a person can have such a knee jerk reaction, and fly off the handle about a person's statement without getting to know why exactly he said what he said.

And FYI, they all grandstand and they all want to run for the Presidency all of them, he just happens to be doing it for good reason.

 

[ChezC3]

Judicial review was sort of a power grab by Chief Justice Marshall in 1801. The founders basically left it open as to whom would determine what is and what wasn't constitutional. Chief Justice Marshall took that power in the Maybury vs. Madison case, the other two branches of government didn't complain or take any action.

A lot of the papers and bio's left from when the constitution was written seems to indicate the states and the people would determine what was and wasn't constitutional. But there is just as many other who went back through English Law and tradition as to have the SCOTUS determine that. Thus I say it was really an open question not answered with some delegate believing one way and others the other.

Madison, Jefferson et. al thought the power to determine the constitutionality rested with the people and the states, most of the federalist didn't.

My main gripe is the despotic nature in the setup. They're there for life, they've the final say, and it would take moving 3 mountains with a gully dwarf to have them unseated.

 

[notquiteright]

Abso-freakin-lutely, want to know why? I'm not making laws, they are. I'm not trying to take away the 2nd Amendment, I'm exercising my 1st. Hallowed no, you've me mistaken. Flawed men, deeply flawed and the worst of the worst had the most influence. It shocks me that a person can have such a knee jerk reaction, and fly off the handle about a person's statement without getting to know why exactly he said what he said. And FYI, they all grandstand and they all want to run for the Presidency all of them, he just happens to be doing it for good reason.

A wise man once said, if only you would engage your brain before exercising your rights.

You don't honor the Constitution and use a rather flimsy excuse of, you don't have to as you have no power- past the right to vote which I believe would be great news to politicians wishing to dismantle the triad our laws are made and reviewed with.

If you are shocked by my post, life must be one big shocker for you... good luck!

I agree with grandstanding, I tend to dismiss it as just that, and the concept of 'good reason' is abso-freakin-lutely in the eye of the beholder.

FYI I too swore an oath the support and defend the Constitution but I don't make any laws. Supporting the Constitution isn't just for politicians...

 

[ChezC3]

A wise man once said, if only you would engage your brain before exercising your rights.

You don't honor the Constitution and use a rather flimsy excuse of, you don't have to as you have no power- past the right to vote which I believe would be great news to politicians wishing to dismantle the triad our laws are made and reviewed with.

If you are shocked by my post, life must be one big shocker for you... good luck!

I agree with grandstanding, I tend to dismiss it as just that, and the concept of 'good reason' is abso-freakin-lutely in the eye of the beholder.

FYI I too swore an oath the support and defend the Constitution but I don't make any laws. Supporting the Constitution isn't just for politicians...

Ah, who said I wish to honor it? It is what it is, so our elected officials must follow it.

Shocked by your post, nah, nothing new for me, smarmy rascals wanting to play gotcha games, nothing that I haven't seen before, or , heh, did you think you were an original?

"Flimsy excuse" is just as subjective, except "good reason" actually means you have to present one, and not simply dismiss something because you can't refute it.

 

[AllanHampton]

My main gripe is the despotic nature in the setup. They're there for life, they've the final say, and it would take moving 3 mountains with a gully dwarf to have them unseated.

The House (Representatives) have the exclusive power to impeach (Article I, Section 2, clause 5). The House can impeach a Judge for bad behavior (Article III, section 1, clause 1). U.S. citizens have the exclusive power to choose Representatives every two years (Article I, Section 2, clause 1).

Also, the House has control of the federal government's money (Article I, Section 7).

 

[notquiteright]

Ah, who said I wish to honor it? It is what it is, so our elected officials must follow it. Shocked by your post, nah, nothing new for me, smarmy rascals wanting to play gotcha games, nothing that I haven't seen before, or , heh, did you think you were an original? "Flimsy excuse" is just as subjective, except "good reason" actually means you have to present one, and not simply dismiss something because you can't refute it.

You are typical rabble rouser, supporter of any attack you like. rather than stand for something, honor something, you support the puff and grandstanding poser.

Ahhh the 'Palin defense'- you didn't say something stupid, I played gotcha! :roll:

Yes the Constitution is what it is, and the lawmakers would be well served to let the Supreme Court decide what follows the Constitution rather than try and decide what passes muster- (I think Cruz is quite right to not let 'gun' control go to the Supreme Court as 'reasonable' restrictions have been upheld before.)

I don't think I am an original, nor do I think you are. As far as refuting goes, I do believe you have not presenting a good reason and the refuting was easy.

 

[ChezC3]

You are typical rabble rouser, supporter of any attack you like. rather than stand for something, honor something, you support the puff and grandstanding poser.

Ahhh the 'Palin defense'- you didn't say something stupid, I played gotcha! :roll:

Yes the Constitution is what it is, and the lawmakers would be well served to let the Supreme Court decide what follows the Constitution rather than try and decide what passes muster- (I think Cruz is quite right to not let 'gun' control go to the Supreme Court as 'reasonable' restrictions have been upheld before.)

I don't think I am an original, nor do I think you are. As far as refuting goes, I do believe you have not presenting a good reason and the refuting was easy.

Sloppy, sloppy...

Keep in Context, quit trying to be Clever, and make sure your word usage is Correct... you might just be able to pass yourself off as that hip, quick witted fellow you're trying so hard to be...


But enough with you, I say good day!

 

[Trip]

Your bias slip is showing. Yea, BUSH/Raygun never trampled all over the constitution, but hey, let's not bring them up because that's old news, right?

I'd like to hear about how "Raygun" violated the Constituton, or even "Bush"..

But what I find fascinating is that you're greeted with the violations of Obama, and you can only frame it in terms of partisan hackery, and not condemn the enormity of what Obama has done to the country and constitution.