Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Oaths of Office: Legally Binding or Not?
Self | February 26, 2024 | Self

Posted on 02/26/2024 5:23:41 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 last
To: NorthMountain

That’s because Congress was to write those laws as to the enforcement mechanism, and the states the same with their jurisdictions. The Constitution was not meant to be explicit on those matters. Nevertheless, the Constitution explicitly calls oaths or affirmations binding.


61 posted on 02/26/2024 9:24:22 PM PST by Olog-hai ("No Republican, no matter how liberal, is going to woo a Democratic vote." -- Ronald Reagan, 1960)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

But that’s the problem with constitutions that do have such laws enshrined—they are too readily abused. Have a look at the constitutions that are too comprehensive in its laws.

Never mind Tacitus’ famous quote, that outlines the fact that the state with the most laws is the most corrupt.


62 posted on 02/26/2024 9:28:25 PM PST by Olog-hai ("No Republican, no matter how liberal, is going to woo a Democratic vote." -- Ronald Reagan, 1960)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

Correct; among men though, Trump is the leader of what we can term the opposition to the Uniparty. So far, it appears that God is really taking Trump’s side in how the left is being steadily exposed.


63 posted on 02/26/2024 9:30:57 PM PST by Olog-hai ("No Republican, no matter how liberal, is going to woo a Democratic vote." -- Ronald Reagan, 1960)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: NorthMountain

Where is the “enforcement mechanism” in the Constitution for treason? Article 3 Section 3 defines treason and how one must be convicted of same, but not the “enforcement mechanism” other than the executive branch; and it’s left to Congress to define the punishment required.

PS. There are four federal laws that outline the mechanism for punishing violation of oaths/affirmations of office, listed here: http://foavc.org/01page/Articles/Violation%20of%20Oath%20of%20Office%20and%20Walker%20v%20Members%20of%20Congress.htm


64 posted on 02/26/2024 9:36:29 PM PST by Olog-hai ("No Republican, no matter how liberal, is going to woo a Democratic vote." -- Ronald Reagan, 1960)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
Mine is one of frustration that we cannot prosecute violations of oath...

It's a devilish problem. Who brings the charge? Who makes the arrest? Who manages punishment? How is "Who" selected without those officers becoming beholden to the District of the Craven?

This is where the 17th Amendment shows to be an evil. If Senators represented their States, the States could get them to file charges. It would take an Amendment, but let's say a third of the States were up for leveling charges, then that would require an Impeachment vote in the House, which effectively puts a two year time limit on a dangerous President. Tragically, as things are now per the 17th, Senators effectively represent DC because they are so beholden to mass media.

See tag line.

65 posted on 02/26/2024 9:38:05 PM PST by Carry_Okie (The tree of liberty needs a rope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
But that’s the problem with constitutions that do have such laws enshrined—they are too readily abused. Have a look at the constitutions that are too comprehensive in its laws.
Never mind Tacitus’ famous quote, that outlines the fact that the state with the most laws is the most corrupt.


Ours was the first written constitution, but by comparison with European constitutions in the Napoleonic Code system, ours lacks detail. Specificity in the constitution itself lessens the need for judicial interpretation of the same. I personally think our constitutional rights need to be more detailed than they are to reduce the role of judges when the government wants to abridge our rights.
66 posted on 02/26/2024 10:14:18 PM PST by Dr. Franklin ("A republic, if you can keep it." )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Franklin

The constitution of the USSR was more detailed in terms of rights than the US; problem is, it construed them in “positive rights” format where they were granted by government (Obama complained about our “charter of negative liberties” because they tied government’s hands) and with the caveat of being “in the interests of the working people”, and we know how well that worked out


67 posted on 02/27/2024 12:45:39 AM PST by Olog-hai ("No Republican, no matter how liberal, is going to woo a Democratic vote." -- Ronald Reagan, 1960)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

“Hanging by the neck seems excessive.”

Hanging is certainly technically binding, if not legally.


68 posted on 02/27/2024 1:16:26 AM PST by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Who brings the charge? Who makes the arrest? Who manages punishment?


I would think the sherriff, but I doubt he is aware of that civic eesponsibility.

It might be to our advantage to start locally. Find out who drafts city code, and aim for verbiage that prohibits manifest enemies of the Constitution from voting or holding public office.

The “right” to shed innocent blood is *explicitly* prohibited. That is the meaning and intent of that document. That we even need to gave this conversarion as a society is a sad commentary on the state of affairs in our nation.


69 posted on 02/27/2024 5:32:17 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew (In a world of parrots and lemmings, be a watchdog.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

No, I meant “more”. Politicians lying has a far greater impact on my wallet than snake oil salesmen.


70 posted on 02/27/2024 6:00:16 AM PST by liberalh8ter ( Ephesians 6:10 - 18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
Find out who drafts city code, and aim for verbiage that prohibits manifest enemies of the Constitution from voting or holding public office.

Think carefully on that as to how it could be used. Is anyone that wants to amend the Constitution its enemy?

71 posted on 02/27/2024 6:24:15 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The tree of liberty needs a rope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Franklin

The judiciary has been permitted to supervise its own for too long.


I have pondered that notion. No citizen oversight where standards for bar exams are set.

Jurisprudence has little if any oversight outside of itself, and so we are encumbering ourselves with legislation that does not address wrongs committed, but even the potential to commit a wrong.


72 posted on 02/27/2024 6:33:59 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew (In a world of parrots and lemmings, be a watchdog.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

Not. They’re total masturbation.


73 posted on 02/27/2024 6:36:38 AM PST by discostu (like a dog being shown a card trick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LeoTDB69

Witness stand oath is really just a formality. Lying on the stand is perjury. Actually doesn’t matter if you took the oath, it’s still perjury. In practice that oath is really just a person saying “yes I know there could be consequences”.


74 posted on 02/27/2024 6:39:37 AM PST by discostu (like a dog being shown a card trick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: liberalh8ter

Ah, that makes sense. I thought you meant more damaging to the politician. If there’s a way to get the wrong meaning out of something, I’ll find it.


75 posted on 02/27/2024 7:34:30 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew (In a world of parrots and lemmings, be a watchdog.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
I have pondered that notion. No citizen oversight where standards for bar exams are set.
Jurisprudence has little if any oversight outside of itself, and so we are encumbering ourselves with legislation that does not address wrongs committed, but even the potential to commit a wrong.


We've become a tyranny of judges, and we the citizens have no "standing" to object. Everything depends on the judge. The law means nothing as it can always be finessed by some judge if he doesn't like the law.
76 posted on 02/27/2024 11:40:11 AM PST by Dr. Franklin ("A republic, if you can keep it." )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Franklin

BREAKING:

Maricopa County Board of Supervisors just ran out of a public meeting when they were served the following:

My name is Michelle Klann, and I’m here today to put you on public notice and to inform you that you are not our elected officials.

None of you have never signed an oath to the Republic of Arizona.

Instead, you have signed an oath of office to a foreign corporation which means this is an act insurrection.

You do not have a proper bond carrying surety for your actions to we the people.

Due to all the voter fraud, you have never been formally voted in.

Acting as if you have any authority over the people is a direct act of treason.

Today we, the body sovereign are presenting you each a notice of liability and opportunity to cure. The fine is $1.75 million per claim and there are 12 signatures which means you are each personally liable for $21 million. If you do not resign in 3 days you will be presented with a writ quo warrento , an a waiver of tort. If you do not rebut these truths and you remain in office, We will be notifying the military, and your act of treason will be grounds for an immediate military tribunal.

I don’t need to tell you the penalties for treason.

We the body sovereign, hereby command you to resign within three days or else face the consequence.

I’m also here today to hand you this jump drive, which contains a 5000 page document notifying you of all the dangers of the Covid vaccine and the poison in the water to name a few.

These are high crimes and acts against humanity. If you cover up high crimes, you will be held guilty for committing acts against humanity.

Therefore I hereby command you to send a public broadcast to every resident in Maricopa county notifying them of these dangers within the next three days or you will be in direct violation and derelict of your supposed of duty, making you even more accountable for your actions.

Notice to agent is notice to principal.
You have been formally served on record.


This is what should be happening at every level of government.


77 posted on 02/29/2024 7:02:53 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew (In a world of parrots and lemmings, be a watchdog.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: discostu

I think I’d take those words as a little more than formality.

Oath: I swear by Almighty God that I will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.


78 posted on 03/02/2024 1:44:56 PM PST by LeoTDB69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: LeoTDB69

Take them how you want. The fact is if you’re on the stand you can get busted for perjury, with or without the oath. It IS just a formality legally.


79 posted on 03/02/2024 2:31:32 PM PST by discostu (like a dog being shown a card trick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson