Would you rather the Congress protect you or the Constitution?

[kentuck]

When they are sworn into office, they all take an oath to "protect and defend" the Constitution of the United States. It says nothing about protecting you or I in any other way that differs from what is in the Constitution.

It's a simple question that all Senators and Congressmen should be asked. They seem to have forgotten the oath they took when they were sworn in?

Yes, we all want to be safe but that is not in the job description of the US Congress. Just saying.

[NV Whino]

1. By protecting the Constitution they are protecting me.

When they stop protecting the Constitution, my protection goes out the window. There is no either/or.

[kentuck]

2. Well said!

Too bad others do not see that.

[AsahinaKimi]

9. This!

[840high]

58. Thank you.

[Blue_In_AK]

3. Protect the Constitution, please.

Our chances of being killed by a terrorist are pretty slim. Not saying it doesn't happen, but you're about a million times more likely to die from something else. They can't protect us from everything, and, frankly, I don't want them to.

I want them to just stay out of my life.

[randome]

4. Their oaths should be changed.

The Constitution is not the Bible and no one should be swearing allegiance to a piece of paper, no matter how revered.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[kentuck]

5. Should it be changed to:

I do solemnly affirm that I will protect and defend randome and all his friends on DU?

[randome]

11. People before paper. Always.

Otherwise, there is no difference between the Constitution and the Bible. Fundamentalism is never a good way to live our lives.

And everyone who asks why someone is violating the xth Amendment is only giving a viewpoint and not the ipso-facto argument they postulate.

Here's an interesting question and I'm serious: do other Western style countries swear allegiance to paper or to country?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[kentuck]

12. Do you realize how dangerous that line of thinking is?

Rather than individual freedom, you would, in effect, give all the power to the state. No thank you!

[randome]

14. I didn't say the Constitution should not be the bedrock of our laws.

But swearing allegiance to a piece of paper seems odd to me.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[kentuck]

19. By your logic...

The Bible is nothing but paper, also. But people have a right, guaranteed by our Constitution, to worship as they please. If you swear to uphold the wishes of the people that vote for you, you may not get the right to worship as you please and on what would you base upholding the laws? The people want to hang you without a trial. Is that OK?

[randome]

24. We may be fundamenally in agreement.

I agree in having the Constitution be the bedrock of our society. But swearing allegiance to it?

Isn't that like marriage? Should you swear allegiance to the concept of marriage or to the person you are marrying?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[kentuck]

26. No. It isn't like marriage.

It is the rules and laws for our society, not our marriage.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

6. How revealing, now I know why you don't have a problem with the violation of the 4th admendment

I appreciate your honesty.

[randome]

13. See, you say 'violation of the 4th amendment' as if there is no possibility of disagreeing with you.

That's fundamentalism no different from a Baptist preacher saying it's okay to discriminate against gays because it's 'God's Law'.

I did not say the Constitution should not be the guiding document behind our laws. But I question swearing allegiance to a piece of paper instead of the people you are elected to serve.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[kentuck]

18. It's not the same as fundamentalism.

Our laws are based on our Constitution. As a fundamentalist, you might discriminate against a Catholic or a minority. By the Constitution, you cannot do that. Have you thought this through?

[randome]

20. Discrimination occurs in our society all the time.

And, again, I am not saying the Constitution should not be the guiding principle of our society.

But, examined objectively (I think), what makes the Constitution any better than the Bible?

It's the same question some pose when questioning why scraps of green paper with numbers printed on them have any intrinsic value. They don't, of course. They only have the value we ascribe to them.

So why is the Constitution better than the Bible?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[kentuck]

25. "So why is the Constitution better than the Bible?"

With the laws within the Bible, you could be put to death for blasphemy, for saying the Bible is nothing but a piece of paper. That is why the Constitution is different.

[randome]

27. I feel like I was nearly put to death here! Kidding!

This was just running through my head from a few days ago when someone posted about breaking laws to save someone's life. It occurred to me on a personal level that I would break any law, any principle to save someone's life.

Which got me to thinking about letting external factors control my behavior.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[dkf]

36. Would you take everyone's rights away to save that life?

Is that not how authoritarian rule works?

[randome]

49. I don't think authoritarians are too concerned about lives.

I'm just posing some thought experiments. The Wikipedia article below shows a great variety in oaths of office. America is not the only one that swears allegiance to a constitution but other have different oaths.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[kentuck]

37. That is why we have individual freedom and the right to a trial by our peers...

If you kill someone, they may find it "self defense" or "justifiable homicide"? You won't find those laws any where but in the Constitution - not with the people and not with the Bible. That is why they swear to protect and defend the Constitution when they take the oath for office. Because there is no other viable substitute.

[randome]

43. Actually, the President can use the word 'affirm' instead of 'swear'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States

Although I doubt anyone has used this option.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

32. You say it's 'just a piece of paper' as if there is no possibility of disagreeing with you.

Swearing allegiance to our country's foundational laws is synonymous with swearing allegiance to the people.

"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."

But like I said, it is good to know where you stand on this issue. Because if they are harvesting and storing all our digital and phone communications, it is blatantly in violation of the 4th amendment.

You realize that you can't win that argument so now you move to dismiss the constitution itself.

[randome]

35. Courts have already ruled that phone data is not protected by the 4th amendment.

I'm not 'losing' anything because I'm not trying to 'win' anything, I'm just theorizing.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

41. That was from 1979, and what they are doing today goes way beyond that, time for the SCOTUS step up

IF They are harvesting AND storing all digital and phone communications (as recent revelations allude to) I argue that IS a violation of the 4th amendment.

What say you?

[randome]

42. I don't believe it is because I do believe that the 4th Amendment...

...could not possibly have anticipated having hundreds of thousands of people's data in one place.

It's not the same as pulling a file from a filing cabinet as it was when the 4th Amendment was written. So I actually believe that 'unreasonable' leaves plenty of room for interpretation.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

44. Well, that's your opinion, but I think the 4th amendment is clear and that the amount of personal

effects spied on does not undermine the language of the law, or it's intent, in fact i believe just the opposite.

and it isn't just the 'unreasonable' hurdle of the law, which i think it obviously doesn't pass either, but PROBABLE CAUSE, which they clearly haven't cleared.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

[derby378]

7. It's not a "God-damned piece of paper," though

The Constitution is supposed to be the heart and soul of American government. It can be amended, sure, but it cannot be summarily ignored or disposed of like the Bush 43 administration was wont to do.

[WinkyDink]

10. Uh...WHAT?! "A piece of paper"?! Do you know the concept of "words" and "meanings"????

[Uncle Joe]

16. Are you serious? The Constitution is the CONTRACT,

without it, you have nothing but chaos and rule by force.

The U.S. would quickly descend in to a nation dominated by demagogues and warlords with continuous internal strife and multitudes of civil wars.

[randome]

17. What do other countries swear allegiance to?

Again, I'm not saying the Constitution should not be the bedrock of our laws. But swearing allegiance to a paper is not fundamentally different from someone swearing allegiance to the Bible.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[kentuck]

21. Just a piece of paper?

The principles and laws within the Constitution mean nothing? You would think it was the Sunday funnies. You are way off base friend.

[randome]

31. The only other country I can find so far...

...is Israel. The left faction of Israel says pledging allegiance to their constitution is 'fascism' but that's just one part of the government, of course.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[kentuck]

40. And how big and popular is that "faction"?

But if they have a Constitution similar to ours, their viewpoints, however unpopular and however small, is protected by their right to free speech. At least, that is the way our Constitution is supposed to work.

[Uncle Joe]

29. The Constitution is not just a piece of paper, it is the rules of law

and if a politician can't solemnly affirm their commitment to defend the rule of law, you have nothing.

I don't know what "other countries" swear allegiance to, it's depending on the nation I suppose but I do believe the U.S. should remain a nation governed by the rule of law and not that of men or women's presupposed unstructured beliefs.

[randome]

45. There are a few on this thread who say politicians can't be trusted ever.

Isn't that the case with any promise or oath? You still depend on the person and not the actual existence of the paper or the recital of the oath.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Uncle Joe]

52. But after swearing an oath, (even a secular oath) to defend the rule of law,

the people have a firmer foundation of recourse in bringing about removal either via election or impeachment should a politician blatantly break this oath, at the very least fellow Congress People can be more easily pressured to censure said offender.

I will be the first to admit some politicians will bend the law as far as they can but without a clear structure aka; contract; solidified by an oath of commitment, the people would be on much more tenuous ground.

[randome]

55. I do see that. Having a system in place gives us SOME peace of mind.

But it still depends in some measure on trust of the people running the country. If not the President, then the opposition party or those who monitor the President.

Those who say they don't trust the government -right-wing or left- actually DO trust some portions of the government or they would not be able to function on a daily basis.

It's occurred to me that our Constitution is 237 years old. I was idly wondering the other day, if we had to design a new Constitution today, what would we include?

Would most of us strike the 2nd Amendment completely? I know I would.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Uncle Joe]

56. I view the Constitution as a "living document" and considering all the amendments

that have been added and in at least one case removed, it's not entirely over 230 years old.

There is flexibility in the contract and it does take major tipping points to alter it, but I believe overall this is a good thing.

[Avalux]

34. Fundamentally?

You are correct that both are words imprinted on tree pulp.

I can't stop laughing at the comparison otherwise - you must be joking!

[Bluenorthwest]

46. UK might be to your liking,

I, (Insert full name), do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God

[randome]

48. Here's the Wikipedia article on 'Oath of Office'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office

There is quite a variety in oaths and pledges upon taking office.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[WinkyDink]

8. The Constitution.

[cherokeeprogressive]

15. The Constitution of the United States.

[backscatter712]

22. The Constitution. n/t

[arthritisR_US]

23. I see it as a mute point..

...as they are not doing either particularly well

[Manifestor_of_Light]

47. The word is "moot" not mute. Thank you.

[arthritisR_US]

51. Thank you! I can be daft at times :). n/t

[Squinch]

54. Maybe they are being very, very quiet.

[GeorgeGist]

28. I'd rather not need protecting from other human beings.

Sadly, that's not an option.

[Avalux]

30. Yep - I don't want Congress to protect me.

I want them to follow the Constitution (as they pledged, with their hand on the freakin' bible) - which will in turn, protect me. Not just physically from violence, but also protect my inalienable rights as a human being.

At this point, I think that most of them should go, regardless of party. So much has been allowed to pass and those that have passively allowed it are just as to blame.

[avaistheone1]

33. I rest assured if the Congress is not protecting the Constitution it is not protecting me.

[dkf]

38. I'd prefer the constitution to protect me rather than congress.

Congress hasn't convinced me they are competent enough so it's not even close.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. I shudder at the thought of politicians protecting either.

"History has tried to teach us that we can't have good government under politicians.   Now, to go and stick one at the very head of government couldn't be wise." Mark Twain

[jazzimov]

50. I believe that the Constitution is a LIVING DOCUMENT

that's what makes it such a GREAT document.

The Founding Fathers kept it vague for a reason, so it could be interpreted for the current situation. they knew that they weren't "perfect" with "perfect prescient vision" - they KNEW that some things had to be "worked out" later to match the current situations that they couldn't foresee.

That's why I feel that the Constitution is a Living Document. Otherwise, I would call for it to be repealed so it can be replaced with a Current document.

for those who are "strict constructionists" - I say first of all that the general vagueness proves that it was meant to be Living Document designed to be interpreted; or you should go back to the 18th Century when it was written and leave the rest of us alone.

[graham4anything]

53. There are no rights for the 3000 killed on 9-11.Or all those killed daily w/ guns.Or Trayvon Martin

I pick the first choice.

The 2nd amendment renders the first amendment void every time a bullet is used by a vastly wrong interpreted 2nd.

What right did Mr. Trayvon Martin have after he was assassss inated in cold blood in a crime that should be charged with
first degree murder and not second degree?

So obviously the only correct answer is me.(you).

Besides, let's first get to the declaration of independence, which is far more important than the sequels.
And it said "all MEN are created equal."

Now, that only meant men that looked like Thomas Jefferson, and did not include women.

Therefore, as per the consittuiton, 82% of the democratic party wasn't covered at all.

[Yo_Mama]

57. I don't believe Congress can protect us without protecting the Constitution

Without that, the country will inevitably decline and become less safe.

[Nimajneb Nilknarf]

59. It's the responsibility of the people to protect themselves.

Congress is empowered to provide for the common defense of the nation, and general welfare.

Internal security is the responsibility of the people, be it through the militia or however else they decide to organize themselves and whatever they choose to call it.