Liberty MavenThe Oath of Office is now officially a laughingstock
November 11th, 2009 3:42 pm | by Mike Miller | Published in Constitution, Health Care, Liberty, Politics, congress, law | 5 Responses
Each time a new member of the U.S. House Representatives is sworn into office, he or she is administered the following oath:
I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or 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.
Similarly, each new Senator must submit the following 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.
Despite this, almost none of the 535 members of Congress take this oath seriously. Either they are atheists who do not care about the religious and humanistic consequences of violating these oaths, or they have subscribed to the faulty notion that the Supreme Court’s misinterpretation of the Constitution somehow trumps the words of the Constitution itself — which of course is impossible because it’s the Constitution that gives the various parts of government, including the Supreme Court, its powers, not to mention the fact that this governing document declares itself the Supreme Law of the Land. Indeed, Article VI of the Constitution explicitly states:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
So given the clear fact that the Constitution, as written, is the ultimate rulebook, and members of Congress swear to “support and defend” the Constitution, it certainly gives a rational person pause when the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives not only pushes a blatantly unconstitutional bill (in the form of health care “reform”) but virtually laughs in the face of a reporter who asks “Where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?” Without blinking, Pelosi’s immediate reply was an incredulous, “Are you serious?”
Walter E. Williams explores this exchange in his latest commentary entitled, “A Minority View: Constitutional Contempt”:
…Later on, Pelosi’s press spokesman Nadeam Elshami told CNSNews.com about its question regarding constitutional authority mandating that individual Americans buy health insurance. “You can put this on the record. That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”
Suppose Congress was debating a mandate outlawing tea-party-type protests and other large gatherings criticizing Congress. A news reporter asks Nancy Pelosi where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to outlaw peaceable assembly. How would you feel if she answered, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” and ignored the question. And what if, later on, someone from her office sent you a press release, as was sent to CNS News, saying that Congress has “broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce,” pointing out that demonstrations cause traffic jams and therefore interferes with interstate commerce?
Follow LM on Twitter
November 12th, 2009 at 12:10 am (#)
I love this blog. And it is very sad to see such a sterling article blackened with "Either they are atheists who do not care about the religious and humanistic consequences of violating these oaths…". There is nothing about a lack of a belief in god that necessitates an indifference to the humanistic consequences of not living up to specific oaths. I realize that the article doesn't explicitly say that their atheism (of course, there is no concession on the parts of congresspersons that they ARE atheists) is the CAUSE of their not caring but it is nonetheless implied. Sad to see a sentence so opposed to liberty (in this case, religious liberty) posted on LIBERTYmaven.
November 12th, 2009 at 12:10 am (#)
I love this blog. And it is very sad to see such a sterling article blackened with "Either they are atheists who do not care about the religious and humanistic consequences of violating these oaths…". There is nothing about a lack of a belief in god that necessitates an indifference to the humanistic consequences of not living up to specific oaths. I realize that the article doesn't explicitly say that their atheism (of course, there is no concession on the parts of congresspersons that they ARE atheists) is the CAUSE of their not caring but it is nonetheless implied. Sad to see a sentence so opposed to liberty (in this case, religious liberty) posted on LIBERTYmaven.
November 12th, 2009 at 3:46 am (#)
I think you're reading too much into it. I only brought the religious crap into the picture because the oaths contain the words "so help me God". I mainly look down upon these traitors for not keeping their words to protect and defend the Constitution. I don't really give a rat's ass whether or not they believe in god.
I think you read my sentence to mean that atheists are people who "don't care about consequences…" but that's not what I meant at all. Perhaps it was poorly worded. I was under the influence of alcohol when I wrote it, after all. (That's my excuse, and I'm sticking to it). I pass no judgment upon atheism.
I was simply trying to say that (since they swear the oath "so help me god") they either don't give a crap they're pissing on the god they swore to, or else they misinterpret the constitution.
Hope this clears up my intentions. Thanks for your comments.
-Mike
November 12th, 2009 at 3:46 am (#)
I think you're reading too much into it. I only brought the religious crap into the picture because the oaths contain the words "so help me God". I mainly look down upon these traitors for not keeping their words to protect and defend the Constitution. I don't really give a rat's ass whether or not they believe in god.
I think you read my sentence to mean that atheists are people who "don't care about consequences…" but that's not what I meant at all. Perhaps it was poorly worded. I was under the influence of alcohol when I wrote it, after all. (That's my excuse, and I'm sticking to it). I pass no judgment upon atheism.
I was simply trying to say that (since they swear the oath "so help me god") they either don't give a crap they're pissing on the god they swore to, or else they misinterpret the constitution.
Hope this clears up my intentions. Thanks for your comments.
-Mike
November 12th, 2009 at 5:49 am (#)
Alright then.
Thanks for the blog.