“. . . I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. . ."

[stellanoir]

Last edited Sun Feb 14, 2016, 01:26 PM - Edit history (1)

'scuse me but this particular clause in the Congressional oath has been ringing in my ears for more than most of the unproductive intransigence of Congress during Obama's term.

Whenever I've asked a lawyer or a judge about the many blatant violations of this clause, they've all said,

"Well, it's open to interpretation."

Not *one* proceeded to interpret.

If Congress were simply strongly reminded of this specific clause in their oath of office, blanket obstructionism might just be obliterated.

That is, if our unrepresentative governance still had a glimmer of integrity.

Violations of this clause (coupled with gargantuanly wasteful campaign *spending*) enable legally sanctioned bribery to dictate knuckle headed legislative disconnect with constituencies.

They’ve damned near sabotaged & disabled 2 branches of government.

May they be stopped in making it all 3.

[stone space]

1. In my experience, those who cry "treason" are generally more interested in...

...the attached punishment than in the crime itself.

It's considered more polite than directly calling for the deaths of those so accused, I suppose.

[stellanoir]

3. wasn't crying it.

Just am astonished that nobody even brings up the issue.

edited the "treason" line out.

[Cleita]

2. If not out and out treason, if that seems too harsh, they have

violated their oaths of office, IMHO. Maybe we need something more legally binding than oaths in the future, which in this day and age are rather quaint and medieval. How about making them sign a contract for their terms of office, much like what we sign for employment with all the terms and conditions said and what will be the penalties for violating such terms and conditions. It seems for the sake of the future of our country something's got to be done.

[hfojvt]

4. How do you think that applies

especially to the now?

I thought that the oath that I took for Federal employment was pretty dishonest.

The oath said "I am under no compulsion to take this oath."

I was thinking. Okay, if that is true, then I will not take it. I figured that if I said that, then I would NOT have a job.

Well that, right there, is a pretty darned strong compulsion is it not? But I was supposed to claim it was not there.

Anyway, here is the text of the whole thing. I do not see how you are applying this clause, or what you are taking to be clear violations.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Oath_Office.htm

I mean, would it NOT be considered "defending the Constitution" to do everything in your power to prevent a person from getting on SCOTUS who thinks that position entitles him/her to re-write the Constitution?

[stellanoir]

5. Now "?" wrote this a while ago in response to a similar "?" It's applied for a long while.

"How does pledging an oath (Norquist pledge) to never, ever, ever, raise taxes on the “elite" beneficiaries of the greatest wealth from our economy, no matter what the heck the national circumstance, *not* qualify as a rather *severe* “mental reservation”. . .?

How are an unprecedented seven year frenzy of filibusterings & onerous obstructions of any & all substantial matters of legislation, the long stated willful intent to entirely sabotage the executive branch, the intransigent avoidance of confirming judges, ambassadors ( & even the cyber security wiz), never ever taking an accounting of military waste, incessantly denying proven science, refusing to enact reasonable gun legislation, whilst relentlessly hacking of our once emblematic “social safety net”, and environmental protections, not all completely tantamount to gross “evasion” of basic duty to serve the public. . . ?"

[hfojvt]

6. that's just basically saying

anybody who does not agree with my list of issues is not serving the public.

The voters get to decide every six years if they think their Senator is serving them.

Their opponents are free to use your reasoning to attack them, but it is not very convincing.

"refusing to enact reasonable gun legislation"

'Reasonable' is in the eye of the beholder. As in, the voters will decide.

It would be a strange system if a President of one part got to charge legislators of another party with treason or malfeasance if they did not support his legislative agenda. Imagine all the Democrats attacked after 2003 for "not supporting their President or their country in time of war."

[stellanoir]

7. Sorry if you read it that way.

Still, the laundry list I provided applied to another situation. I was very busy earlier today and it was easier to cut & paste.

Kindly pardon.

The "Norquist Pledge" has been around for decades. Signatories certainly bring with them a rather colossal "mental reservation".

Beyond that, the primary issue now is one of willful intent, and habitual actions to purposely block the executive branch at every turn.

That has happened repeatedly for the past seven years.

There have been countless times that legislation that had majority support were never brought to the floor for a vote under Baynor.

That's pretty damn evasive.

It hasn't been a question of lack of support for the executive's agenda.

It has been all out obstruction all the time throughout Obama's term, even when he made proposals initiated by Republicans, and even when he nominated people who had previously had Republican approval.

If we had secure elections, then the voters would decide.

We do not.