Posted on 02/26/2024 5:23:41 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
The oath of office is a pledge, but the details of what is required by law of a public official and how that is enforced are different maters entirely.
It’s always made no sense to me that corporations can’t lie to you in their advertisements or the government will go after them (unless you’re a pharmaceutical company) but politicians can lie to you all day long and the consequences are far more damaging.
My suggestion is that our legal code, whether by amendment to the Constitution or by federal code, state code, or local code, explicity prohibits advocates for abortion or avowed anarchists from voting or holding public office.
The only thing that gives me pause is that we are nearly stupidly legislating what nature and conscience already say.
Perjury cold come into play but I see an oath as more about ones honor than it is about law.
Sadly it seems more and more, that people are willing to view perjury from a lawbreaking sense as more egregious than keeping ones oath.
I think you used the word “more” where you meant “less,” no?
Politicians have always sought to concentrate power to themselves.
And the power to deceive the population, well, that they crave over everything else as through it they can manipulate populations into heinous things for their own enrichment.
It really depends on the state.
In New York and Vermont, if you don’t take the Oath of Office for an elected position, you won’t be seated for that position. Different issue, for sure.
If you violate an oath of office, you could put yourself in jeopardy of some type, be it removal from office, etc. If the oath was not legally binding, I don’t know how it could argued you could be removed from office.
Responding again: If the oath of office were legally binding and we had a trustworthy DOJ, more than half of Congress would be in jail.
Depends... If the men of the nation are completely drained of their testosterone and willing to put up with rainbow flags flying over the capital and there are crooks, thieves, liars and faggots in charge of the government, much like our nation is today under O'Biden.. Then, you can be sworn in on a copy of "Mad Magazine" and the oath becomes a joke and it is NOT binding in any way,shape or form. :(
The hard part of it is just means of enforcenent, right down to the guys with ropes and handcuffs.
18 U.S. Code § 1918
Whoever violates the provision of section 7311 of title 5 that an individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he—
(1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;
(2) is a member of an organization that he knows advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;
(3) participates in a strike, or asserts the right to strike, against the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia; or
(4) is a member of an organization of employees of the Government of the United States or of individuals employed by the government of the District of Columbia that he knows asserts the right to strike against the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year and a day, or both.
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.
Not that it means a tinker's fart to a dim. Witness how they take an oath before they testify to Congress, and then blandly lie and dodge when questioned and quoted.
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; ...
The problem is that no penalty is specified for violation of this clause. At best, the violation of such an oath should be grounds for a Constitutional challenge in a court of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Federal, District and Supreme). The remedy sought could be injuctive against the action or inaction of the offending party.
I have no idea if such an action has ever been brought, however all persons whose direct representative is in violation of such a claim should have standing against such a person. In cases where the violation is cause by an executive action (including Executive branch agents), ALL who are subject to the consequences of the action (including monetary consequences) should also have standing.
“...but those seem few in number these days.”
Agreed, and the Left Progressive goal is to finish off the remainder of us. Ultimately God is the guide in all things regarding good. So if evil is to dominate the discourse then God must be destroyed.
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.That’s the text of Article 6, paragraph 3 (not designated a section FWICS). As you can see, everyone listed here (the word “executive” looks to me to include the POTUS and state governors and their respective officers) is “bound by oath or affirmation” et cetera.
I do know that the oath of US naturalization is ceremonial only per about four SCOTUS rulings since around 1820.
SCOTUS stated that it was up to congress to make the oath binding…which has never happened.
*FR Class a few years ago with all the SCOTUS cases; and there was homework.
The word “bound” is in there for sure. What is the nature of that binding, and what are the consequences for violation?
I cannot think of a time where the oath of office, or violation thereof, was the subject of litigation.
Please bear with me. The subject is both deep and intriguing, while I have a tendency to be dense.
It’s just maddening. They are never prosecuted for that. Why not? My brother, whom I loved, was convinced there is no legal basis for prosecuting a violation of that oath. He is/was a true patriot.
Can you find any legal code attaching to actual prosecution and viloation? It’s like chasing a ghost.
The law seems to say you need to take the oath, but is short on consequences and procedure for viloations.
My hope is that some legal minds will chime in here to give support to my brother’s point of view so we together can question it.
Basically every senior officer in the German Army and Navy, and most of those in the Luftwaffe, was in uniform when Hitler became Chancellor, and had thus taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the Weimar Republic. Ever heard of a senior officer in the German Army, or Navy, getting the boot when Hitler made himself dictator, because he couldn’t violate his oath to the Weimar Republic? Me neither.
Officials do things they don’t want to because:
1. They do have a sense of personal honor.
2. They calculate that the downside of breaking their oath, be the downside social stigma, or being tortured and executed by the Gestapo, is even worse than the downside of doing the thing they are supposed to do, but don’t want to.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.