Skip to comments.Brennan Takes Oath on Draft Constitution— Without Bill of Rights
Posted on 03/08/2013 4:47:17 PM PST by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America
Oh, dear. This is probably not the symbolism the White House wanted.
Hours after CIA Director John Brennan took the oath of officebehind closed doors, far away from the press, perhaps befitting his status as America's top spythe White House took pains to emphasize the symbolism of the ceremony.
There's one piece of this that I wanted to note for you, spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters at their daily briefing. Director Brennan was sworn in with his hand on an original draft of the Constitution that had George Washington's personal handwriting and annotations on it, dating from 1787.
Earnest said Brennan had asked for a document from the National Archives that would demonstrate the U.S. is a nation of laws.
"Director Brennan told the president that he made the request to the archives because he wanted to reaffirm his commitment to the rule of law as he took the oath of office as director of the CIA, Earnest said.
The Constitution itself went into effect in 1789. But troublemaking blogger Marcy Wheeler points out that what was missing from the Constitution in 1787 is also quite symbolic: The Bill of Rights, which did not officially go into effect until December 1791 after ratification by states. (Caution: Marcy's post has some strong language.)
That means: No freedom of speech and of the press, no right to bear arms, no Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures, and no right to a jury trial.
How ... symbolic?
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Brennan Takes Oath on Draft Constitution Without Bill of Rights,>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Then Brennan has not taken the oath. He is not really duly sworn as required by law.
Yeah, not swearing is scapegoating of this Muzzie criminal who’s an expert of cover up, especially his involvement of looking at Passports where one person shot and never investigated. Now his in there to cover up for four killed/murdered/slaughtered four (4) Americans in Benghazi!!!
Sanders voted “No”?!?
Good for him!
Yep, I saw that. Seems out of character for a Socialist. But remember there are some issues where the Looney Left align with the more extreme Libertarians.
I am not being critical of libertarian thought, only some of what the Libertarian party seems to draw. Paradox.
It most certainly does not mean that. Once again: the Bill of Rights limits what government can do to our natural rights, not grants us those rights. Without it, we're absent the protections, not the rights. (And yes, eventually we'd be absent the rights without the protections.)