Skip to comments.Should the Constitution be amended ? Vanity post
Posted on 11/01/2012 4:22:41 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist
Oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.
Should the Constitution of the United States of America be amended to only allow those who have taken a oath to defend the Constitution to vote including citizens ?
Those who are already serving or have served in the military should be allowed to vote at the age of 18 since they have already taken a oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America.
What good will this do?
Obama took this oath - hand on a Bible - and that hasn’t stopped him from obeying that oath.
And you think this is going to accomplish what exactly?
I’d rather just overturn the 17th amendment and start returning power to the states.
here is a weird thought.. in the strictest sense of the oath would wanting to further amend the constitution be considered a violation of the oath?
Those who are not or will not be loyal to the Constitution won’t take that oath.... therefore, they can’t vote.
Loyalty oaths caused a lot of agitation from civil liberties groups but someone really devoted to overthrowing the established order at all costs might just take the oath to worm their way into a position where they could do some real damage.
But two qualifications: 1) if you were a dedicated Communist or fascist or anarchist or whatever you'd look like a hypocrite to your friends if you took the oath, so you would be much less likely to vote or serve in the government, and 2) some oaths required you not just to promise to honor the Constitution, but to promise that you'd never been a member of the Communist party or other subversive organization -- if you lied presumably you could be taken to court for it.
We don't need more teachers; we need better teachers, and that also means fewer teachers.
We don't need more laws, we need better laws, and that also means fewer laws.
Quakers do not take oaths, citing James 5:12 . . . do not swearnot by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your yes be yes, and your no, no, or you will be condemned.
That goes for those who are up-front about what they believe.
Someone truly subversive would hide his or her true convictions to be able to subvert the government from with in.
The other problem is that they wouldn't be swearing allegiance to the Constitution as you understand it, but to the Constitution as they understand it, and when people have their mind set on something they don't admit that the Constitution stands in their way.
Finally, the way the country is now, I don't see something like this going through -- or if it did, it would be repealed or overturned by the courts a few years later.
What about my 90 year old mother in law?
I understand where you are going, but there are too many exceptions to be made.
No, because the amendment process is a part of the Constitution.
Don't forget the 16th Amendment.
True enough. Both enslaved the states and the people to the federal government.
A small step in the right direction ?
They would disagree with you on that point.
Article VI, paragraph 3, and states that:
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.
Even the president isn’t required to take an “oath of office”. They choose to affirm instead.
Before he 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.’’
There is no purpose in taken an oath that has no consequence if you break it. Congress and the President have consequences if they break their oath. If you gave it a real consequence would you be comfortable with the current White House or Department of Justice to deciding who to prosecute?
This is the same group the took the phrase “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ....” to make laws limiting law limiting the free exercise of religion by focusing on the establishment clause.
Franklin Pierce is the only President to affirm rather than swear an oath.
As many observe, an oath just ain’t what it used to be, especially when talking about democrats and muslims.
I respectfully suggest that a much more useful amendment would require one or both of the following measures:
1. You must be a taxpayer to vote. It is an intractable conflict of interest to be a person receiving government largesse and voting for people who can redistribute wealth. This would not apply to physically disabled persons or recipients of social security retirement benefits.
2. You must pass a civic competency examination. Next to government dependency, ignorance is the next great enemy of responsible voting. An astonishing number of people have no concept of how the government operates, where government revenue comes from or what are the founding principles of the country. Absent this basic information, it is impossible to make an informed decision about voting, as reflected by the election of such completely unqualified people as Obama and Clinton. Besides lack of experience, Obama seems to have been elected on nothing more than celebrity. Clinton had a limited, crappy record, a saxophone and his ability to “feel our pain” to recommend him. Nothing but a stupid, ignorant populous can explain their electoral success.
Hell no! It should be obeyed and everything would be fine.
Loyalty is an organic thing. It either grows as a natural product of our socialization or it doesn’t. When children were raised in the Judeo-Christian American culture that used to prevail, their family, religious and community values were all in harmony with American ideals of fairness, equality, hard work, self-reliance, duty, self-sacrifice, virtue, faith, charity and patriotism. No oath can compensate for these values, if they are not inculcated and, nor can it overcome values hostile to American ideals.
Without intending to, I think I may have just described what makes the American left so strangely similar to Islamists. Although they are culturally worlds apart, they share disdain for American values.
I think the short answer is "We The People" must continue to elect constitutional conservatives until there are enough to overcome the liberal left and the old dog Republican elites. It will take years, but it can happen. I know of no other way except civil war and no one wants that, yet it may come to that on our present course.
Oaths are words. Anyone can repeat words back to you, and as of yet, the technology to determine if they really, really mean it, is not available. Furthermore, I’ve never subscribed to the Heinlein earn your citizenship model. Call me old fashioned and a romantic, but Heinlein’s idea pales next to the tried and true declaration of citizenship as a birthright.
Now I see your problem. You're just naive. They'd take the oath and take it about seriously as Kim Kardashian took that "Til death do us part" part of her vows.
You should have thought it through more. The constitution itself lays out the process by which it can be added to or subtracted from. Seeking an amendment is absolutely constitutional.
Who lied to you, and told you that was a liberal position? I'm 100% against rights without responsibilities and consequently responsibilities without rights. At 18, you're an adult in all fifty states. Your wages are taxed, you fully accountable for you actions in a court of law, you register for the draft, etc etc. At 18, you have stake in the game, so you absolutely deserve a vote. If anything, the drinking age in this country flies in the face of reason, not the voting age.
Until you develop the app that can measure love, there is nothing that can be done to accomplish what you want.
When it comes to taking human nature out of human business, there are no solutions. Human nature, both the good and the bad will permeate politics until the sun goes cold. There is no utopia, there is no holy grail, there is no perfect government. In politics especially, perfection genuinely is the enemy of good.
it should be an oath and service for some time (a year) to the nation. The service doesn't have to be in the military -- doctors can help in small villages/towns, young folks can help the elderly
Why, even a disabled teen, say a severely disabled teen is still a valuable person, who can help with their intelligence (I strongly believe as a Christian that everyone is a gift from God -- and i've seen downs syndrome children who truly are gifts)
and, if people don't want to do this, they should be allowed to opt out -- and they don't get a vote...