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.
Every four years when a cold January 20th rolls around, while watching television or listening to the radio, we all hear once again the Constitutionally-mandated, inspiring words of oath voiced by our new President and Vice President in front of the nation and the world.
For the President, based on Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution, the simple oath is this:
" I, _________________, do solemnly swear, 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, so help me God."
For the Vice President (and other federal officials including Members of Congress and Members of the Judiciary) it is (under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution):
"I, ______________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
Members of the U.S. Armed Forces also swear this oath. For example, officers in the U.S. Navy are required to recite this:
"I, _____________, having been appointed a ______________ in the U.S. Navy under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God."
Further, individual American states also provide within their state constitutions that state officeholders should swear to uphold the state constitution. Consider New Hampshire, the current bitter primary battleground:
"I, _____________, do solemnly and sincerely swear and affirm that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all duties incumbent on me as _____________________, according to the best of my abilities, agreeably to the rules and regulations of this Constitution and laws of the State of New Hampshire. So help me God."
And now, friends, as we move into the Great Debate in our Land between the twin opposites of Globalism vs. U.S. Sovereignty, I wholeheartedly believe it is high time to force this policy issue more clearly upon our elected leaders. We must also confront the American people with this topic. One good way to achieve this, in my opinion, is to revise the current wording of these various oaths to include a specific reference that makes it crystal clear that not only will the public officials or military personnel protect our beloved U.S. Constitution, they will do nothing by their actions or non-actions to render the United States of America subservient in any respect to any international or world body. This would have the effect of more fully empowering, for example, any dissenting U.S. military personnel or peace officers/national guard who decide to refuse to serve under the United Nations flag and/or foreign commanders. It would empower, in fact, it would mandate, that our American trade negotiators operate first and foremost under unilateral domestic U.S. trade law and not under world law forced on the American workers and businesses without free election nor open debate.
These revisions would help serve to keep U.S. courts the pre-eminent interpretive judicial bodies for U.S. citizens, and prevent them from becoming subservient to any international court body or "international law making executive" to quote one of the leading pro-Globalists, Walter Cronkite (as stated on BBC-TV).
But the final "clincher" in all of this is it would force the hand of every elected official in the United States as being either for the inclusion of "Sovereignty Language" in national and state oaths, or against. And if for, why? And if against, why not? It could become an election issue in the Fall of 2000 for all candidates for President and be perhaps be included in the debates as a key topic.
It is time some patriotic Congressmen, as well as state legislators and local organizers, consider the more specific "how's" and "when's" to get this patriotic, America-First legislative/iniatiative movement going. For example, it is possible that by mere ballot initiative in some states, the wording of their state oaths could be changed. This is grassroots political enpowerment in the making. It may help smoke out all who have not taken a stand on this vital issue. The issue will not go away, as further Wilsonian "globalization" and surrender of U.S. sovereignty takes hold in the Republic, ever so slowly but surely.
Let us therefore endeavor to provide the moral and ethical tools for those who wish not to be in a position to issue a government edict or a command or accept a government edict or a command infringing upon U.S. sovereignty, and that said persons be fully protected in their dissent by the Federal and state constitutions based on the validity of their public oath. Let us further mandate and insure that Globalists who are currently in office plying their slow trade through subtle hegemony over the American body politic, (but largely away from public scrutiny), be stopped squarely in their Wilsonian tracks.
You've sloshed through the thread this much, which should indicate that you are intrigued and interested. For your patience in reading this strategic justification, here is the suggested new wording for oaths to be administered. Let us start with the general oath for the Vice President and Members of Congress. The suggested language is bold-faced and underlined:
"I, ______________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend both the Constitution and the Sovereignty of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I do not recognize the subservience of the United States before any international laws or bodies, that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." (or words to that effect)...
Again, this issue can and should be taken to the national and state trenches. Perhaps this is not the best language that can be arrived at, but it is a start. Congressional support should be enlisted. 2000 Presidential Candidates should take a stand. Petitions could be circulated at the state level to amend state oaths.
On the face of it, this wording revision may not seem like much of a protection against encroaching One-World-ism in our world today, but nevertheless you have to start somewhere, with the basics. Let us therefore strive to make our own leaders commit to the United States first and foremost, before any other considerations. Those who simply cannot do this, should not have the pleasure, privilege nor responsibility of serving the People of the United States of America.
With many pieces of legislation introduced at the Federal and state levels annually, for all we know this approach has already been initiated (and we sincerely hope so). But it is not known for sure. It does not matter who gets the credit, just that it gets done someday, and hopefully someday soon. It should be a simple, clear issue for most Americans to understand at face-value.
Now, for your feedback, and the 'if' and/or 'how' to get the ball rolling on the "Sovereignty Oath" for elected and appointed members of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches at the Federal and State-level, as well as for the U.S. Military and public safety agencies.
An excellent and important post.
It's sad when the U.S. Constitution is only relevant when inaugaration time rolls around.
If you look closely at Bill Clinton's taking the oath of office back in 92 and 96, he had his fingers crossed behind his back.
FReecerely Yours,
Thanks for your points. And a self serving "Bump" on this thread tonight....AIT
I would like to see the President, members of Congress, and probably many other government officials be required not only to take the Constitutionally-mandated oaths, but also copy out the Constitution, longhand. Many of the people in office have no clue about much of what the Constition says; copying it out would make it clear that they were actually aware of what they were swearing allegiance to.
Note that the concept of having to write something out longhand isn't entirely new. When I took the scholastic achievement tests, I had to copy out (with no. 2 pencil) a paragraph indicating that I was the person I had indicated I was, that I wasn't cheating, etc. and then sign the hand-copied statement. Rather different from the normal routine of signing things where the signer seldom reads the whole document being signed.
Anyone else like the idea of having officials copy out the Constitution? It's not that long, and although handwriting is becoming a lost art it shouldn't take more than an hour or two to copy it out.
BUMP!!!Notice miltary officers oath...as compared to enlisted.I know of many first-hand including my family retired early as we saw this UN/Global governance thing coming when folks were centered on who shot J.R.
Good post but when 'one' takes an oath to defend the constituition 'they are' taking a "Sovereignty Oath," but the way things ARE S_P_E_L_L_I_N_G I_T_ O_U_T may be needed as we have a CIC that has many definitions of "IT!"
B_U_M_P!!!
Cool. I like it. We need to definitely do two prime things: educate the officeholders what in fact the Constitution is; and 2) guarantee they stop pulling hi-jinks like eroding our sovereignty before world bodies and causes.
thanks. excellent points, HTTCN! ...we used to learn the US Constitution frontwards and backwards, right and left in junior high school and high school. It's a travesty now, I would guess, but with effort, the clock can be turned back. We have no other alternative now.
I am happy about this, of course, but it may not be workable. I am afraid many in our government could not abide by a soveriegnty oath. Worse, it might cut into campaign contributions, and we both know how important they are.
Keep up the good fight- I would LOVE to see this become law. It would clean out that snakes den very quickly, if it was honestly enforced.
Great idea! Let's add that any office holder that is required to give an oath must now give that oath each year of his term in the presence of a Federal Judge.
and that before swearing each year, the office holder must swear, under oath, before that judge, that he or she has supported the Constitution in the past year, and that he or she has not violated the oath previously taken, and has not placed the sovereignty of the U.S. in jeopardy... under penalty of treason.
wow, you guys are going for the juguler (sp?) vein!!! :-)
one more late night New Hampshire "bump"!
Thanks for the heads up! <);^)~
That is an interesting concept. I'm not bragging because I'm not a brainy person but I worked hard in college. I carried a 4.0 average. One of the first things I would do when I got the text book for a new course, in longhand, is make an index card of every word in the glossary. When I got done I had a good grasp of the terminology used in the text and when the professor would give the lecture. Once I understood the language, I understood the course.
May I ask a question. Did the solem oath that every one took in the Senate at the impeachment trail of Clinton mean or change anything when many put political loyalty above this very oath. Consider the way they voted inlight of the evidence presented duringthe trail. What I feel is necessary is strong penalties for not being true to every respect of an oath. This is especialy hard thing to prove. But in some cases it is so evident of the total disregard of it to that of political loyalty. It is a real shame that the people who are guilty are not held accountable by us But they are still accountable to God and His judgement.
It remains to be seen whether or not this coming Revolution will involve bloodshed or not ....
Just like the gun laws....they're allready on the books. Make them adhere to the loyalty oath they take in the begining.If not(as in the case of clinton)blindfold and a cigarette,if you can get the legislature to do their job....
We need to get a security clearance as well as this commitment from the candidates.
No Globalist can honestly take those oaths!
Get this post to Rep. Ron Paul. He will have a bill by morning.
Al-Fatihan, "The Opening", or Fatihatu-Kitab, "The Opening of the Scripture" or Ummu'l-Quran, "The Essense of the Koran", as it is variously named, has been called the Lord's Prayer of the Muslims. It is an essential part of all Muslim worship, public and private, and no solemn contract or transaction is complete unless it is recited.
The date of the revelation is uncertain, but the fact that it has always, from the very earliest times, formed a part of Muslim worship, there being no record or remembrance of its introduction, or of public prayer without it, makes it clear that it was revealed before the fourth year of the Prophet's Mission (the tenth year before the hijrah); because we know for certain that by that time regular congregational prayers were offered by the little group of Muslims in Mecca. In that year, as the result of insult and attack by the idolaters, the Prophet arranged for services, which had till then been held out of doors, to take place in a private house.
The surah is also often called Saba'an min al-Manthani, "Seven of the Oft-repeated" ("verses" being understood), S.XV, 87, words which are taken as referring to this surah.
The Opening
Revealed at Mecca
In the name of Allah, the Beneficient, the Merciful.
1. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds,
2. The Beneficent, the Merciful.
3. Owner of the Day of Judgment,
4. Thee (alone) we worship; Thee (alone) we ask for help.
5. Show us the straight path,
6. The path of those whom Thou hast favoured;
7. Not (the path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray.
I missed it. I'm sure your post has significance, but it went over my head.
...and no solemn contract or transaction is complete unless it is recited.
Allah has 99 names. [That would be the number of his name.] If you are not a servant of Allah, then there would be no need to recite this particular oath.
A BTTT!!!!!!!! and a link to another good thread. Shadow Government of The United States and the Decline of America.
BTTT!!!!!!!
Why thanks! I did not know if this was going anywhere, but you helped resurrect it! Maybe some Congressman has already moved on it. It could be done at the state and local levels, too. Thanks again for your kind bump!!!
bump- fantastic
thank you. I gave it much thought. We need someone to carry the cause into battle.
Take a look at this thread.George W. Bush's Dubious Friends
Excerpt;
American banker named Jacksen Stephens who was to also be deeply involved in the BCCI affair moved in 1987 to invest $ 25 million in Harken. The transaction took place in Geneva with the money was paid through a joint venture set up between the Union des Banques Suisses and the Geneva branch of the BCCI; the financial accord was signed by both Stephens and Bakksh.Other links between Bush and Mahfouz can be found through investments in the Carlyle Group, an American investment firm managed by a board on which former president George Bush himself sat. The younger Bush personally held shares in one of the components of the Carlyle group, the Caterair company, between 1990-94. And Carlyle today ranks as a leading contributor to Bush's electoral campaign. On Carlyle's advisory board figures the name of Sami Baarma, director of the Pakistani financial establishment Prime Commercial Bank that is based in Lahore and owned by Mafouz.
Cheers
BTTT!! Another interesting link.
BTTT!
wow! you keep bumping this idea and pretty soon, somebody besides the two of us is going to notice it! (might even be introduced into the House or Senate hopper!)....thanks again.
Regarding sovereignty may I refer fellow freepers to the following website Click here for Sovereignty International. Their mission statement follows.
Sovereignty International Incorporated exists to promote the belief that best government is empowered only by the consent of those who are governed. The consent of those who are governed can only be expressed by free and open elections of officials who are exclusively responsible for enacting public policy. We believe this bedrock principle of government and societal organization is the foundation of individual freedom, private property ownership, free markets and national sovereignty.
Sovereignty International works to advance these ideas throughout the United States and the international community, particularly through participation in United Nations activities, conferences and workshops, publications, international radio broadcasts, and the Internet. It is our belief that the people of all nations are entitled to exercise their inalienable rights through their own governments which they control.
We further believe that governments must first recognize and respect the sovereignty of their own individual citizens before they can respect the sovereignty of other nations. Finally, we believe that a world of nations in which all governments are empowered only by the consent of those who are governed, offers the best hope of advancing the health, happiness, and prosperity of all mankind.
This organization monitors and reports, through their website, on organizations like the UN and the abc agencies within our own government are usurping our sovereign rights as individuals and as a nation at large.
I heard Floy Lilly speak a couple of years ago about how we are being controlled by fraudulant ecological problems and land use regulation. Her perspective on the UN and our movement towards one world government and how it is being implemented is chilling.
Here is another good thread.
Anyone else like the idea of having officials copy out the Constitution? It's not that long, and although handwriting is becoming a lost art it shouldn't take more than an hour or two to copy it out.
Actually we need a licensing requirement for anyone seeking public office (after all, a bunch of the bastards want to require an unconstitutional license for firearm ownership). To obtain this lecense they must first pass a detailed written test on Western civilization, American history, the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Federalist Papers, and economics. Of course there wouldn't be any licensed democraps, would there?
Actually we need a licensing requirement for anyone seeking public office
www.publiclicense.com! (unbelievably it is available)
I'll donate server space and html work!
Time for another bump.
well, you got my vote again on that!!!
We are really getting on the right track now!
I have been suggesting to Jeff that after the 50 Million Round March, we mail perforated paper targets to all of our congress critters with our military oaths spelled out and signed, and the message "you also took an oath to defend the Constitution, do you stand by it today? Which side are you on"? If every congress critter gets 10,000 targets from vets who have sworn to defend the Constitution from foreign AND DOMESTIC enemies, it may clear the cobwebs from their fuzzy skulls.
FReegards,
Citizen Soldier of the United States of America
Member of
A Well-Regulated Militia
I, 8mmMauser, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution of The United States of America states: A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
If you wish to email all the senators at once;
1)Enter "Dear Senator" in the TO ADDRESS of your email and
2)copy all the following list into the BCC(blind carbon copy) field.
3)Then log "Dear Senator" into your address book as your email address. This will give you a file copy and each party will get a copy without knowing they have all been copied.
This list maybe incomplete or slightly out of date. If you discover this to be the case, post the correction or addition with a heads up to me and I will update the list for next time.
chuck_grassley@grassley.senate.gov; chuck_hagel@hagel.senate.gov; comments@roth.senate.gov; connie@mack.senate.gov; conrad_burns@burns.senate.gov; craig@thomas.senate.gov; dick@durbin.senate.gov; email@murkowski.senate.gov; frank_lautenberg@lautenberg.senate.gov; info@kyl.senate.gov; jesse_helms@helms.senate.gov; jim_inhofe@inhofe.senate.gov; john_ashcroft@ashcroft.senate.gov; john_kerry@kerry.senate.gov; kit_bond@bond.senate.gov; larry_craig@craig.senate.gov; mail_grams@grams.senate.gov; mailbox@gregg.senate.gov; mailbox@rpc.senate.gov; max@baucus.senate.gov; mcollins@rnchq.org; michigan@abraham.senate.gov; olympia@snowe.senate.gov; opinion@smith.senate.gov; pat_roberts@roberts.senate.gov; sam_brownback@brownback.senate.gov; sen_dodd@dodd.senate.gov; senator.hutchinson@hutchinson.senate.gov; senatorlott@lott.senate.gov; senator@akaka.senate.gov; senator@bennett.senate.gov; senator@biden.senate.gov; senator@boxer.senate.gov; senator@breaux.senate.gov; senator@bryan.senate.gov; senator@cochran.senate.gov; senator@collins.senate.gov; senator@conrad.senate.gov; senator@dorgan.senate.gov; senator@dpm.senate.gov; senator@enzi.senate.gov; senator@feingold.senate.gov; senator@feinstein.senate.gov; senator@hutchison.senate.gov;hollings@hollings-cms.senate.gov; senator@inouye.senate.gov; senator@kennedy.senate.gov; senator@landrieu.senate.gov; senator@levin.senate.gov; senator@mcconnell.senate.gov; senator@mikulski.senate.gov; senator@nickles.senate.gov; senator@rockefeller.senate.gov; senator@santorum.senate.gov; senator@sarbanes.senate.gov; senator@sessions.senate.gov; senator@shelby.senate.gov; senator@thurmond.senate.gov; senator@warner.senate.gov; senator@wyden.senate.gov; senator_bingaman@bingaman.senate.gov; senator_byrd@byrd.senate.gov; senator_chafee@chafee.senate.gov; senator_coverdell@coverdell.senate.gov; senator_dewine@dewine.senate.gov; senator_domenici@domenici.senate.gov; senator_frist@frist.senate.gov; senator_gorton@gorton.senate.gov; senator_hatch@hatch.senate.gov; senator_kohl@kohl.senate.gov; senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov; senator_lieberman@lieberman.senate.gov; senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov; senator_max_cleland@cleland.senate.gov; senator_mccain@mccain.senate.gov; senator_murray@murray.senate.gov; senator_reid@reid.senate.gov; senator_specter@specter.senate.gov; senator_stevens@stevens.senate.gov; senator_thompson@thompson.senate.gov; senator_torricelli@torricelli.senate.gov; senatorlott@lott.senate.gov; tim@johnson.senate.gov; tom_daschle@daschle.senate.gov; tom_harkin@harkin.senate.gov; vermont@jeffords.senate.gov
Here are the emails for the House. In this case I put my Reps email address in the TO ADDRESS field and the rest in the BCC field.
Again some of these may be wrong and some could be missing. Post the correction and give me a heads up and I will make the corrections
Young@mail.house.gov,sonny.callahan@mail.house.gov, Terry.Everett@mail.house.gov,bob.riley@mail.house.gov, robert.aderholt@mail.house.gov,budmail@mail.house.gov, sbachus@mail.house.gov, snyder.congress@mail.house.gov,asa.hutchinson@mail.house.gov, talk2jay@mail.house.gov,matt.salmon@mail.house.gov, ed.pastor@mail.house.gov,j.shadegg@mail.house.gov, jim.kolbe@mail.house.gov,repriggs@mail.house.gov,democratic.caucus@mail.house.gov, doolittle@mail.house.gov,lynn.woolsey@mail.house.gov,George.Miller-Pub@mail.house.gov, sf.nancy@mail.house.gov,ellen.tauscher@mail.house.gov,rpombo@mail.house.gov, talk2tom@mail.house.gov,petemail@stark.house.gov,annagram@mail.house.gov, campbell@mail.house.gov,zoegram@lofgren.house.gov,samfarr@mail.house.gov, gary.condit@mail.house.gov,george.radanovich@mail.house.gov,lois.capps@mail.house.gov, brad.sherman@mail.house.gov,tellbuck@mail.house.gov,arcoiris@mail.house.gov, Rep.Harman@mail.house.gov,Millender.McDonald@mail.house.gov,Stephen.Horn@mail.house.gov, ed.royce@mail.house.gov,talk2geb@mail.house.gov,loretta@mail.house.gov,ccox@mail.house.gov, rep.packard@mail.house.gov,brian.bilbray@mail.house.gov,degette@mail.house.gov, david.skaggs@mail.house.gov,rep.schaffer@mail.house.gov, Kennelly@mail.house.gov,bozrah@mail.house.gov, rep.shays@mail.house.gov,nancy.johnson@mail.house.gov,Delaware@mail.house.gov, fl01@mail.house.gov,rep.boyd@mail.house.gov,thurman@mail.house.gov,cstearns@mail.house.gov, John.Mica@mail.house.gov,bill.mccollum@mail.house.gov,fl09@mail.house.gov, Rep.Charles.Canady@mail.house.gov,miller13@mail.house.gov,porter.goss@mail.house.gov, fla15@mail.house.gov,mark.foley@mail.house.gov,robert.wexler@mail.house.gov, pdeutsch.pub@mail.house.gov,alcee.pubhastings@mail.house.gov, mac.collins@mail.house.gov,cymck@mail.house.gov,john.lewis@mail.house.gov, georgia6@mail.house.gov,saxby.chambliss@mail.house.gov,john.linder@mail.house.gov, guamtodc@mail.house.gov,neil.abercrombie@mail.house.gov,leach.ia01@mail.house.gov, nussleia@mail.house.gov,rep.boswell.ia03@mail.house.gov,Rep.Ganske@mail.house.gov, tom.latham@mail.house.gov,ask.helen@mail.house.gov,askmike@mail.house.gov, bobby.rush@mail.house.gov,luis.gutierrez@mail.house.gov,danny.davis@mail.house.gov, sidney.yates@mail.house.gov,jfc.il12@mail.house.gov, rep.fawell@mail.house.gov,dhastert@mail.house.gov,lane.evans@mail.house.gov, shimkus@mail.house.gov,mcintosh@mail.house.gov,tim.roemer@mail.house.gov, souder@mail.house.gov,pease@mail.house.gov,John.Hostettler@mail.house.gov, hamilton@hamilton.house.gov,rep.carson@mail.house.gov,jerry.moran@mail.house.gov, rep.snowbarger@mail.house.gov,tiahrt@mail.house.gov,ed.whitfield@mail.house.gov, rep.northup@mail.house.gov,rep.jim.bunning@mail.house.gov, la01.mail@mail.house.gov,jim.mccrery@mail.house.gov,congressman.cooksey@mail.house.gov, christopher.john@mail.house.gov,john.olver@mail.house.gov,jim.mcgovern@mail.house.gov, mtmeehan@mail.house.gov,jmoakley@mail.house.gov,william.delahunt@mail.house.gov, ehrlich@mail.house.gov,rep.cardin@mail.house.gov,Albert.Wynn@mail.house.gov, roscoe@fred.net,rep.morella@mail.house.gov,rep.tomallen@mail.house.gov, stupak@mail.house.gov,tellhoek@mail.house.gov,rep.ehlers@mail.house.gov, davecamp@mail.house.gov,jim.barcia-pub@mail.house.gov, rep.smith@mail.house.gov,debbie.stabenow@mail.house.gov,dkildee@mail.house.gov, david.bonior@mail.house.gov,slevin@mail.house.gov,john.conyers@mail.house.gov, gil.gutknecht@mail.house.gov,mn03@mail.house.gov,vento@mail.house.gov, martin.sabo@mail.house.gov,tell.bill@mail.house.gov,tocollin.peterson@mail.house.gov, oberstar@mail.house.gov,rep.talent@mail.house.gov,gephardt@mail.house.gov, blunt@mail.house.gov,joann.emerson@mail.house.gov,rep.hulshof@mail.house.gov, thompsonms2nd@mail.house.gov,gene.taylor@mail.house.gov,rick.hill@mail.house.gov, EClayton1@mail.house.gov,bob.etheridge@mail.house.gov,david.price@mail.house.gov, Richard.BurrNC05@mail.house.gov,howard.coble@mail.house.gov, CongMcIntyre@mail.house.gov,myrick@mail.house.gov,cass.ballenger@mail.house.gov, repcharles.taylor@mail.house.gov,nc12.public@mail.house.gov, Rep.Earl.Pomeroy@mail.house.gov,talk2jon@mail.house.gov, Rep.Sununu@mail.house.gov,cbass@mail.house.gov,rob.andrews@mail.house.gov, lobiondo@mail.house.gov,franksnj@mail.house.gov,bill.pascrell@mail.house.gov, steven.rothman@mail.house.gov,rodney.frelinghuysen@mail.house.gov, pappas@mail.house.gov,joe.skeen@mail.house.gov,ensign@mail.house.gov, gibbons@mail.house.gov,lazio@mail.house.gov, peter.king@mail.house.gov,thomas.manton@mail.house.gov,jerrold.nadler@mail.house.gov ,vito.fossella@mail.house.gov,rep.carolyn.maloney@mail.house.gov, rangel@mail.house.gov,jserrano@mail.house.gov,dearsue@mail.house.gov, ben@mail.house.gov,mike.mcnulty@mail.house.gov,Rep.Boehlert@mail.house.gov, rep.james.walsh@mail.house.gov,mhinchey@mail.house.gov,bill.paxon@mail.house.gov, louiseny@mail.house.gov,portmail@mail.house.gov,mike.oxley@mail.house.gov, ted.strickland@mail.house.gov,john.boehner@mail.house.gov,rep.kaptur@mail.house.gov, budget@mail.house.gov,sherrod@mail.house.gov,pryce.oh15@mail.house.gov, telljim@mail.house.gov,bobney@mail.house.gov,rep.coburn@mail.house.gov, wes.watkins@mail.house.gov,rep.jcwatts@mail.house.gov, rep.elizabeth.furse@mail.house.gov,bob.smith@mail.house.gov, write.earl@mail.house.gov,peter.defazio@mail.house.gov, darlene@mail.house.gov,curtpa07@mail.house.gov,paul.kanjorski@mail.house.gov, murtha@mail.house.gov,jon.fox@mail.house.gov,mchale@mail.house.gov, pitts.pa16@mail.house.gov,rep.doyle@mail.house.gov,frank.mascara@mail.house.gov, robert.weygand@mail.house.gov,sanford@mail.house.gov,floyd.spence@mail.house.gov, Rep.Spratt@mail.house.gov,jclyburn@mail.house.gov,jthune@mail.house.gov, rep.jenkins@mail.house.gov,jjduncan@mail.house.gov,van.hilleary@mail.house.gov, bob.clement@mail.house.gov,bart.gordon@mail.house.gov,john.tanner@mail.house.gov, max.sandlin@mail.house.gov,rmhall@mail.house.gov, petes@mail.house.gov,rep.barton@mail.house.gov,rep.brady@mail.house.gov, nick.lampson@mail.house.gov,lloyd.doggett@mail.house.gov, texas.granger@mail.house.gov,rep.paul@mail.house.gov,Rep.Hinojosa@mail.house.gov, silvestre.reyes@mail.house.gov,texas17@mail.house.gov,tx18@lee.house.gov, bnkgdems@mail.house.gov,henry.bonilla@mail.house.gov, martin.frost@mail.house.gov,ken.bentsen@mail.house.gov,ask.gene@mail.house.gov, cannon.ut03@mail.house.gov,owen.pickett@mail.house.gov,rep.goode@mail.house.gov, talk2bob@mail.house.gov,jim.moran@mail.house.gov,ninthnet@mail.house.gov, tom.davis@mail.house.gov,Donna.Green@mail.house.gov,bernie@mail.house.gov, repwhite@mail.house.gov,jack.metcalf@mail.house.gov,asklinda@mail.house.gov, grnwa05@mail.house.gov,dunnwa08@mail.house.gov,adam.smith@mail.house.gov, mneumann@mail.house.gov,badger02@mail.house.gov,ron.kind@mail.house.gov, jerry4wi@mail.house.gov,telltom@mail.house.gov,tompetri@mail.house.gov, jay.johnson@mail.house.gov,sensen09@mail.house.gov,bobwise@mail.house.gov,nrahall@mail.house.gov,barr.ga@mail.house.gov
I would like to see the President, members of Congress, and probably many other government officials be required not only to take the Constitutionally-mandated oaths, but also copy out the Constitution, longhand. Many of the people in office have no clue about much of what the Constition says; copying it out would make it clear that they were actually aware of what they were swearing allegiance to.
A great idea, but why not take it further down the food chain. Make it part of the entrance requirement for any military service. Just so the people who are laying their lifes on the line know why, and for what reasons they may never see home again. This is not meant as a dig at the many vets and soliders who know and defend the constitution. There a few who know, and many who don't.
Dear AmericanInTokyo
I agree wholeheartedly that our public officials, at both the Federal and state levels, should be more aware of the "oath of office," but unfortunately through either ignorance or neglect the "oath of office" is to too many public officers, entering upon public service, a mere formality.
I offer this reply mainly to expand upon your concept, for it should be brought out that the "oath of office" is not only called for in Article II, but also Article VI, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Also, it should be mentioned that we are in the 106th Congress now, but the
VERY FIRST ACT of the VERY FIRST CONGRESS, when George Washington was President, called for the taking of the oath of office of both Federal and state officers WITHIN THREE DAYS of its approval. That approval came by its pasaage on June 1, 1789. The Founding Fathers demanded this oath to support the U.S. Constitution, for in doing so, every public official is virtually swearing to God, or affirming under penalty of perjury, that he-she will perform all duties in office according to the law, not according to his-her whim.
Tyrants such as Hitler and Stalin ruled by whim, and if you didn't agree with their orders, you were soundly dealt with by beng put before a firing squad or sent off to Siberia.
Our lack of attention to the "oath of office" may be our national undoing, for even members of Congress apppear to act contrary to what the Constitution specifically lists as the "exclusive powers of Congress," as listed in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Today, we find also the President of the United States issuing Executive Orders that go beyond the "separation of powers" and "checks and balances" built into the U.S. Constitution. This has happened because our citizens, and the youth of today, have not been required to learn how their government operates. The Founding Fathers expected that the Constitution would only stay in force if there were an "informed electorate," and for this reason we have "free press," "free speech, "the right of peaceful assembly" and various other equally important guarantees spelled out in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Currently, I am writing a book on "the oath of office," and have many examples of how the oath of office has been ignored. I have also examples showing that when the people became aware of the situation...that a person was serving without taking the oath of office, either through failure or neglect, he was swiftly ousted from office, for the law says that he-she has no right to the office. In fact, each of us hold dual citizenship. We are citizens of the United States and simultaneously citizens of a particular state of the United States. And, the 1991 unanimous ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Hafer v Melo (502 U.S. 21) says: "Whoever as a state officer, acting under color of state law, shall deny the civil rights of a citizen of the United States, that person shall be PERSONALLY responsible to that U.S. citizen." That is, the state official cannot expect the State to pay, rather the Supreme Court indicated that the state official will personally pay for any damages so done to a U.S. citizen. You should look it up. Hafer learned this lesson while serving as the State Auditor of Pennsylvania.
Now, I am curious about your citation of the "oath of office" for the State of New Hampshire, which you states was as follows...
..."Consider New Hampshire, the current bitter primary battleground:
"I, _____________, do solemnly and sincerely swear and affirm that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and
perform all duties incumbent on me as _____________________, according to the best of my abilities, agreeably to the
rules and regulations of this Constitution and laws of the State of New Hampshire. So help me God."
What surprises me is that this state constitution provision does not also contain, at the same time in the
same oath, some specific reference "to support the Constitution (of the United States), as certainly called
for by Article VI, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Are we to understand that there is a second oath taken by New Hampshire state officers? If such phrasing is left out of the oath of office provision in the state constitution, then it would appear that a second oath to "support the U.S. Constitution should be had. Where is it so provided among the public officials of New Hampshire? If you think this is idle thinking, please check out the SPECIFIC requirement, beyond Article VI, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, as found in Title 4, Section 101 of the U.S. Code (Federal law), which states: "Every member of a State Legislature, and every executive and judicial officer of a State, shall, before he proceeds to execute the duties of his office, take an oath in the following form, to wit: "I, A B, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constituton of the United States."
Where is that provision covered in the "oath of office" you cite for public officers taking the oath of office in New Hampshire? Now, you are not responsible for this oversight, if it is an oversight, but HOW is the requirement of Title 4, Section 101 of the U.S. Code met?
If you think this is a foul-up, in my research I found that the North Dakota constitution, drafted and approved (erroneously) by Congress in 1889, 110 years ago, specifically mentioned that "members of the legislative assembly and judicial department" of North Dakota had to take the oath that follows in the ND Constitution's Article XI, Section 4. IT COMPLETELY OMITTED "executive officers"
from such oath-taking. This makes the ND constitution repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, for if the requirement is at all stated in a state constitution, it should include officers of all three branchs of state government, not just officers of two branches of state government. Get the point? The U.S. Congress itself overlooked this "flaw" when the ND Constituton was submitted to Congress, before it gave its approval for admission to statehood. By pure oversight, this "flaw" was overlooked by delegates to the ND Constitutional Convention, the electorate of North Dakota who voted and adoped the constitution draft in October, 1889, BEFORE it was submitted to Congress...which also overlooked the "flaw" and gave the word to President Benjamin Harrison that North Dakota complied to all terms of the Enabling Act of Feb. 22, 1889 (its Section 4 mainly) and could be admitted into the Union.
The ND situation is the first of its kind in the history of the United States. It is the first time that a state constitution was submitted that contravenes the Constitution of the United States. In fact, Rule 29 of the U.S. Supreme Court provides only for review where there is a Federal law that is alleged to be "unconstitutional" or a state statute that is alleged to be "unconstitutional," and surely a state constitution is fundamental, the people's law, and is much higher than any state statute. This makes the North Dakota constitutional "flaw" a "case of first impression," there is no precedent in law or judicial review that matches the situation that is posed!
I note by your alias or "handle" that you may be in fact an "AmericanInTokyo," and if this be the case, you may be excused for not having U.S. laws available to you, but I urge you to seek out the information at the U.S. Embassy or a U.S. Consulate, where such information can be confirmed and where the citations can be supplied.
In closing, let me emphasize that all Americans should be very anxious to see that the "oath of office" is taken and subscribed (a hard copy document signed by the oath-taker as well as the official administering the oath, and said hard copy be sought out and inspected at a state office. Title 4, Section 102 of the U.S. Code provides for such subscribing of the oath of office.
Thanks again for your posting and for calling attention to the "oath of office" requirement. It is more than a formality, unless we Americans reduce it, in practice, to that shameful level.
Please note that both in Article II and Article VI, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, and in Title 4, Section 101 of the U.S. Code, as it appears when specified in state constitutions, there are words always to this effect: "...before he proceeds to execute the duties of the office..." That is, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A LATE OATH.
If you don't have an oath on file, even upon reappointment to the same previously held office, YOU ARE HISTORY. In most states, when it is discovered that you failed to take the oath of office you are: A) committing a misdemeanor; B0 you are an impostor; and C) you are ipso facto not entitled to the office. Such is the ruling of the North Dakota Supreme Court in the 1923 decision in State ex rel. Johnson v. Cahill. Ironically, North Dakota has a bigger problem with is Article XI, Section 4 "flaw" by the omission of the world "executive." Are we getting picky? Well maybe on some things we should be picky. Amen. Otherwise, why have a U.S. Constitution as the basis of our government at all.
CitizenOne
Dear AmericanInTokyo and All Others
If you really want to look at the nitty-gritty that
relates to the "oath of office," you may be interested
in the detailed "Public Notice" that I published in
various newspapers of North Dakota, for it does show
the "oath of office" requirements in general as well as
the punishment under Federal law of "misprision" and "treason" sections of the U.S. Code applicable to those
who become aware of violation of Federal laws and ignore or conspire to prevent the enforcement of U.S. laws. In the North Dakota case, it was the prevention of the enforcement of the Enabling Act of Feb. 22, 1889, an Act of Congress spelling out the requirements for admission of the then newly proposed states of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington.. Be it known that in the North Dakota constitution "flaw" matter, I did report it to a Federal officer, a U.S. Attorney, in the presence of a witness. No correction has been seen since the time of reporting, since Feb. 1, 1995. A person who reports a violation of Federal law to a Federal officer is protected under this ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court, namely: In re Quarles and Butler 158 U.S. 532 (1895)
If you wish to explore the "oath of office" requirements further, please refer to this posting...
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3905d66a6615.htm
CitizenOne
I am starting to feel a distant rumble under my feet, something is happening here!
as in?
let's get this thing a rollin'. If we wait 24 months or so more, I will venture to bet that things in general will have decayed to the point that if anyone of us tried to circulate at a local supermarket a petition to get this kind of wording on as a state measure, we would probably be surveilled and our homes given the "Elian Treatment"......
what a great, informative post. Yes, I am in Tokyo and did not lug all of my law books over here!!! I am now digesting the contents of the many helpful observations you had....
Morning bump from this side.
Working on getting a special page with that oath up on the site for vets.
Be later today.
What a powerful engine for freedom Free Republic is!
Dear AmericanInTokyo and All Others
Let us recognize that the “oath of office” for public officials, as spelled out in Article II and Article VI, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, if different from the “oath” taken by the citizen entering the U.S. military. Once in the military, the person swears to follow the orders of his commander(s), and we all know that such orders in a battle situation can mean putting your very life on the line for your country. That’s what a person agrees to do upon entering the military and that is what it’s all about. So be it.
However, few know that our involvement with the United Nations is of a nature that the United Nations can tell the President of the United Nations to send in the U.S. military forces to meet a United Nations-defined need, which could be far-removed from what the United States Congress, which has the power to “declare war” would find in the “national interest.”
That is why there has always been a serious question as to WHEN a situation in any part of the world can demand the involvement of U.S. armed forces, simply on the beck and call of the United Nations. When entry into the United Nations was first considered by the U.S. Senate, under the guise that our entry was a “treaty” with other nations and thus deserved the approval of the U.S. Senate, there was only opposition from two Senators, namely: Senator Langer of North Dakota and Senator Shipstead of Minnesota. When the UN Charter was brought from San Francisco to Washington, DC by Alger Hiss, there were a goodly number of Senators that never even read the UN Charter, yet they voted for our entry into the United Nations.
Worse yet, when deliberation was going on in the Senate on our entry into the United Nations, President Truman was at the Potsdam Meeting with Stalin and Churchill. Trumen sent a message to the Senate saying that if a situation arose calling for the demand that the United States, at the order of the United Nations, send in our military forces, it would be done, BUT it was to be worked out that the number of our troops compared to the contributions of troops of other countries would be “worked out” AFTER the vote of the U.S. Senate was taken to approve our entry into the UN.
We now know that this was never done, and the United States has been in many military involvements where the United States shoulders the big involvement while other nations contribute token forces to the military effort.
If the “oath of office” really means something, why did the U.S. Senate by its vote on entry into the United Nations, make our nation subservient to the United Nations by acting as “policemen of the world”? Did we virtually give up the exclusive power of the United States “to declare war,” as an exclusive power of the U.S. Congress?
Please note that a March 6, 2000 report on the case of Michael New is still pending but not moving anywhere fast. You recall that Michael New was court-marshaled for his refusal to wear the insignia of the United Nations on his U.S. Army uniform. He contended that he took an oath to fight for the United States, not the United Nations. New was one of 550 members of the Army’s 3rd Infantry Division ordered to strip the U.S. flag from their shoulders and replace it with the blue U.N. patch as a preliminary to service under Finland’s Gen. Jehu Engstrom in Macedonia in 1995. New was the only soldier to refuse.
The case of Michael New continues on before an appeals court with a decision expected within the next few months. According to a report by Conservative News Service, government attorneys argued that New’s court-martial conviction should stand because “the military lives and dies by soldiers following orders.” The soldier and his attorney, Hank Hamilton, contend that the order was illegal and unconstitutional, and that he was not allowed to present a defense at his initial military trial.
Among the issues is CLASSIFIED Presidential Decision Directive 25, (PDD-25) that even members of Congress cannot see in its entirety! This is a secret document that apparently permits the president to engage the military in various adventures without congressional approval.
The United States has continued to supply military observers and civilian police for U.N. efforts in some of the 17 areas in which “peacekeeping missions” are active, including Bosnia, East Timor, Georgia, Kosovo, and Western Sahara. It is apparent that strings attached to renewed U.S. payments to the United Nations include greater Pentagon involvement in U.N. military planning, and that U.S. troops soon will rejoin their U.N. brothers and sisters in “global service,” particularly in several hot spots in Afrida.
Be that as it may, Michael New, as one American soldier, pledged his allegiance to the United States; his contention is that he did not pledge his allegiance to every whim that came to the U.N. leaders as a reason to involve our military in combat or in peacekeeping operations. As you know, too, Congress became embroiled in debate when American soldiers were put into U.N. service UNDER THE COMMAND of other than an American officer, a situation that can arise in U.N. operations as a common occurrence. Where the line is drawn remains a serious question; it is still under debate.
If you want to know more about Presidential Decision Directive 25, issued by President Clinton as part of an ongoing plan to surrender the U.S. military to the United Nations, you should read...and see...pages of the “summary of PDD-25 that was released recently...with many pages blacked out...so that the American public and members of Congress do not know the language of this document. You will find it in the New American magazine dated Mar. 27, 2000, pages 18 through 20. Five years after the original Freedom of Information Act request, only the sample pages of this heavily redacted copy of PDD-25 was released. In this article it states that on January 24, 2000--five and one-half years after the original request by New American magazine for a copy of PDD-25--the magazine received another letter from the National Security Council informing the magazine editors that the document “is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.” In other words, there is no law requiring that it be provided to anyone, even those who appeal to FOIA. But, said the letter, PDD-25 has been declassified and can be relased “in part.” And the declassified PDD-25 was enclosed....with many paragraphs blacked out, as illustrated in this article. An accompanying letter stated that the blacked-out portions “contain information exempt from disclosure under Section 1.5(d) of Executive Order 12958.” Thus, most of the text of an unconstitutional Presidential Decision Directive, issued by the President, has been shielded from view through the tactic of employing an Executive Order, another unconsitutional usurpation of power. In the visible portion of PDD-25 (signed by “William J. Clinton”), the President states that it “is in our interest to support or participate in UN peace operations.”
According to Mr. Clinton, the various “threats to world peace” requiring U.S. action under the UN’s jurisdiction include “territorial disputes, armed ethnic conflicts, civil wars, (many of which spill across international borders), and the total collapse of governmental authority in some states.” According to the conclusion of the New American magazine, there simply is no constitutional authorization for U.S. military forces to be involved in any of these operations.
According to the New American article cited, if members of Congress demanded an end to being relegated to a secondary role when deciding WHEN and WHERE our military forces will be used, they could under the Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 virtually stop cold such power employed by the President, for it relates to the “power of the purse,” the money necessary to engage in such military adventures.
In a related comment, the same article cited above, quoted former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich in his column in USA Today for January 7, 1999, for this college buddy of President Clinton argued that America’s domestic policy is now being run by the Federal Reserve, and that our nation’s foreign policy is under the purview of the International Monetary Fund and the Treasury Department. The article was headlined, in part: “Don’t Worry, Congress is Irrelevant.”
As the article concludes, the functions of the office of President are spelled out in the U.S. Constitution. The nation’s chief executive was never meant to be a lawmaker. He is not authorized to insert our nation into war--that momentous power is granted to Congress alone under our U.S. Constitution. And, nowhere is any President authorized to commit our nation’s military to any operation other than those needed to protect the lives, liberty, and property of the American people.
The time is long past due that the American people demand that the “oath of office” is a sacred oath to the people who only delegated limited powers to their representatives in government. To make sure that they adhered to this premise, the “oath of office” was to require “support” of the U.S. Constitution as the guiding light for
all action. All OTHER powers are reserved either to the States or to the people. Amen.
Let us remember that the oath of enlisted personnel entering the United States armed forces is an oath exclusive to the United States of America; that is, in taking his oath he is subject to the American Government exclusively, subject only to Constitutional limitations. If such a member of the United States armed forces were put in harm’s way and captured, he is entitled to a protected status as a POW, BUT, as a UN soldier, if he were captured, he would be considered a “UN hostage.”
Let’s not forget the case of Lt. Colonel Rich Higgins, an American Marine serving on a “peacekeeping” mission in Lebanon i 1988. He was abducted and HANGED by Hezbollah terrorists. What happened to him as an assigned American “peacekeeper”?
The position of our State Department was that they would seek release of “all of the hostages” without making a special effort to secure the release of this American officer. He wasn’t, according to our U.S. State Department interpretation, an American POW, he was simply another UN hostage, and this redefinition of his status proved fatal. Our American officer, a “UN peacekeeper,” was HANGED!
A former Vietnam POW, Navy Captain Red McDaniel, wrote the following: “U.S. law provides no specific guidelines concerning U.S. military involvement in conflicts under UN command. Thus under the present status of U.S. and international law, the U.S. government has no way to protect its military personnel captured during UN operations from physical and mental torture, inhumane treatment, incarcerations and even execution.”
Let’s look and compare the language of the two oaths of service, the U.S. military oath and the UN oath of service. First, “ill show what every enlisted person entering the U.S. armed forces takes as an oath. It reads as follows:
”I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; taht I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
Now, compare this solemn oath of an American fighting person to his country, the United States of America, with the United Nation’s oath of service. The UN’s oath of service requires the affiant, the one taking the oath, to do the following:
”...to discharge those functions and regulate my conduct with the interests of the United Nations only in view, and not to seek or accept instructions in respect to the performance of my duties from any government or other authority external to the organization.”
By what authority can our U.S. government transfer the allegiance of an American fighting person without his permission?
That is why an “oath of office” is so important; it is a contract of the most solemn type, when one affirms or swears before God that he will do certain things. But, remember, the oath of the U.s. enlisted fighting person states that he “will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that he will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. It further requires that he will obey the orders of the President of the United States. But, remember, that the President and also members of Congress, take an oath to support the U.S. Constitution and it is a good question why the exclusive power of Congress “to declare war,” as found in the U.S. Constitution, has been so repeatedly dispensed with and ignored. Have we lost our independence? Yes, if we cannot INDEPENDENTLY determine when, where, and for waht national interest the members of our armed forces will serve.
It is my understanding that our current President Clinton went to great pains to avoid the draft for service in the Vietnam War. Much as been written about his being a draft-dodger. The mark of a true leader is that he only asks others to do what he himself would not hesitate to do.
Some years back, Congressman Joe Scarborough chose October 24th, generally known as UN Day, to introduce the “United Nations Withdrawal Act.” He stated to his fellow members of Congress that “the United Nations no longer serves our nation’s interests.” Our presence in the UN distorts our foreign policy, and it has been used by the executive branch in the past to cut Congress out of its constitutional role in foreign affairs. Back on Nov. 1, 1995, his House Bill 2535 had siz sponsors. What happened to this bill? It apparently was killed in Congress.
Perhaps we should consider repealing the UN Participation Act, which grants the President authority to carry out the provisions of the UN Charter’s Article 43, which incredibly states that “the President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the UN Security Council on its call” the military forces of the United States of America. Congress was in no way constitutionally authorized to pass this Act! It’s unconstitutional, if you consider our U.S. Constitution to be “the supreme law of the land.” If not? Then we have world government, clear and simple.
Yes, the “oath of office” is important; it is not some idle formality mouthed by a public official before he assumes the duties of his office. BUT, “WE, THE PEOPLE,
must insist that the U.S. Constitution is supported. How can public officials, and for that matter, most American citizens, SUPPORT a U.S. Constitution, if they have never taken the trouble to read it and understand it? THAT, friends, IS THE REAL PROBLEM! And, our youth today are being dumbed down; they are not required to know and understand the U.S. Constitution. That is even a greater problem when we insist that our educational system needs to be upgraded...upgraded for what? Upgraded for every social need while relegating “civics,” the studyof how our government operates, to a back pew? Perhaps we have put too much on the time and effort put on extracurricular activities in our tax-supported schools; perhaps we have emphasized the “glory” that comes to our youth by bouncing or kicking a piece of pigskin around. Perhaps, as this former teacher in all classes 4 through 12 has seen, we need an emphasis on those courses and subjects for study that can produce an “intelligent, active, peace-loving citizen,” who is anxious to be informed about the affairs of the day, who is anxious to participate in political debate and run for public office for the public good, not just to perpetuate himself in some cushy office for his own reasons.
The emphasis should be on the “oath of office,” that safeguard built into the language of our U.S. Constitution by our Founding Fathers.
Citizen One
To AmericanInTokyo and All Others
My apologies for goofing up the text of paragraph two (2) of my last posting. It reads wrongly:
"However, few know that our involvement with the United Nations is of a nature that the United Nations can tell the
President of the United Nations to send in the U.S. military forces..."
It should have read as follows:
"However, few know that our involvement with the United Nations is of a nature that the United Nations can tell the
President of the UNITED STATES to send in the U.S. military forces..."
Sorry about that.
CitizenOne
BTTT!!
To AmericanInTokyo and All Others Interested in the “Oath of Office”
A Special Report for East Polk County (Minnesota) Residents Concerned About Road Maintenance
Here is a REAL-LIFE EXAMPLE of how the “oath of office” can turn things around....for the people of Polk County of northwestern Minnesota.
THE ISSUE:
The Board of Polk County Commissioners announced a change in road maintenance for the East Polk County area as early as Mar. 7, 1994. Effective July 1, 1994, road maintenance for this region was to be handled by county, in-house equipment and personnel based at Fosston.
Prior to this, the East Polk County region, including Trail and Gully, was served by private contractors who serviced the area with their two motor graders and one county truck. The new maintenance plan would reduce or eliminate the work done by these two private contractors.
Michael Rardin, Polk County Highway Engineer, announced that the new plan would require the purchase and use of two tandem trucks equipped with underbody blades and salting equipment as well as one motor grader. The media quoted Rardin as saying that the new plan was based on a cost-analysis that could show a considerable saving to Polk County while providing equal—or even better—road maintenance services to the East Polk area.
PETITION CIRCULATED:
Residents of the affected road maintenance area formed a group, circulated a petition, and submitted it to the Board of Polk County Commissioners with a total of 259 signatures. The petitioners requested that the Board consider either Trail or Gully as a home base for their area’s road maintenance equipment and asked that the Board schedule a public hearing so that residents could air their concerns before the Board. The authority for the petition was based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that reserves to the people the right to peaceably assemble and to petition the Government for redress of a grievance. The petitioners challenged the Board’s wisdom of implementing this plan as a practical and money-saving approach to area road maintenance.
OATHS OF OFFICE NOT ON FILE:
Being a Grand Forks-based freelance writer as well as publisher of the newsletter, Back Side of the News, I had been working for months on the subject of “oaths of office,” as required of most elected and appointed officials in all branches of federal, state, and local government. My research in North Dakota had shown a serious lack of attention to this requirement, so it was by coincidence that I decided to check on how closely this requirement was being followed in neighboring Polk County of Minnesota.
I found that the filing of oaths of office was complied with by ELECTED officials, for Minnesota has a system whereby an elected official’s record of having taken the Oath of Office is found on the very back side of the official’s Certificate of Election, a much better system than I found in North Dakota. However, my visit to inspect the filed oaths of office of Polk County APPOINTED officials was far from being in compliance with the law. I sought out the oath of office for the Polk County assessor, who had only recently been cleared of alleged criminal charges. I found that his oath was not on file. I also noted that the oath of office of the Polk County Highway Engineer, Michael Rardin, was also not on file in the Polk County courthouse in Crookston. Normally, as a bonded officer, the County Highway Engineer’s oath of office is to be attached to the bond covering his official work.
I inquired of the County Coordinator, John Schmalenberg, as to whether Rardin had taken his oath of office. Schmalenberg said he’d check. Upon my return, Mr. Schmalenberg told me that Rardin had not taken the required oath but that he would be taking it at an upcoming Board meeting.
Normally, a person is to take his oath of office BEFORE entering upon the duties of his office. This general rule is very much a part of Minnesota Statute Section 358.05, which in its entirety says:
Every person elected or appointed to any other public office, including every official commissioner, or member of any .public board or body, before transacting any of the business or exercising any privilege of such office, shall take and prescribe the oath defined in the Constitution of the state of Minnesota, Article V, Section 6.
It should be noted that I was making this inquiry on Apr. 18, 1994. This means that Mr. Rardin had not then taken his oath of office, or had it filed and attached to his bond, at the time he had recommended the Board’s action on the new road maintenance plan for the East Polk County area.
Later, on May 13, 1994, this writer interviewed Mr. Rardin in the presence of Robert W. Gillies as well as one of Rardin’s own staff members. When asked, Mr. Rardin admitted that he only recently had taken his oath of office—obviously triggered by my earlier inquiry—and that it was the first time he had been asked to take this oath of office, despite the fact that he had been serving as Polk County Highway Engineer since January, 1985! Yes, this county official, controlling expenditures of a county highway department in 1993 bordering on almost $10 million, had been serving for nine years without ever taking his required oath of office.
The records show that Mr. Rardin took his oath of office on April 26, 1994 and it was filed on April 27, 1994. Surprisingly, the man who alerted Rardin of the oath requirement, Mr. John Schmalenberg, the Polk County Coordinator, only saw fit to take HIS OWN oath of office, on April 26, 1994, and his oath was filed the next day, an action also triggered by this writer’s inquiry.
In a later meeting with Polk County Auditor Amiot, this writer was chided for having brought up the oath of office requirement. Mr. Amiot remarked that he had called other neighboring counties and they also didn’t have the oaths of office on file for appointed officials. Yet, the law is the law, and all county officials are sworn to follow the law.
UNANNOUNCED MEETING CANCELLED:
A group of women heard about a meeting of the Board of Polk County Commissioners, a meeting that reportedly was to take place in Crookston on Friday, June 10, 1994. This secret, UNANNOUNCED meeting was quickly cancelled by the Board of Polk County Commissioners upon the appearance of the women. It is, of course, against the law in Minnesota for any Board of County Commissioners to conduct official business at any secret, ANNOUNCED meeting. What was the agenda for this meeting that had to be cancelled?
DISTORTED FACTS SPREAD BY MEDIA:
From the initial announcement of the new road maintenance plan in the Mar. 7, 1994 issue of the 13 Towns newspaper of Fosston, Minnesota up to the time of holding the public information meeting on Wednesday, July 13, 1994 in the Community Hall of Gully, a litany of distorted reports were published by the official newspaper of Polk County, the13 Towns of Fosston, the city that coincidentally was to become the new base for the in-house, county equipment and personnel that would handle road maintenance for East Polk County, according to the newly announced plan.
In the March 7, 1994 issue of the13 Towns newspaper the Polk County Highway Engineer, Mr. Rardin, was quoted as saying, “After doing a cost analysis, it was decided that the county could save money by doing it in-house rather than hiring it done.” During the May 13, 1994 interview of Rardin by this writer Mr. Rardin was asked for the “cost analysis” upon which the new plan was based. Mr. Rardin, before witnesses, told this writer that there was no “cost analysis,” and if the newspaper made such a report, it was wrong. Why, then, didn’t Mr. Rardin quickly call the Polk County newspaper and ask for a correction? Surely a reference to a “cost analysis” implies that some thorough study was made to justify the changes being proposed in the road maintenance plan. Or was it thought that this reference to a “cost analysis” enhanced the impression left in the mind of the general public, so why bother hastening to correct it. Only when the 13 Towns staff was asked by this writer to verify the existence of such a “cost analysis” was any correction published, and that correction came—126 days later—in the July 11, 1994 issue of said newspaper, only two days before the scheduled hearing asked for by 259 area petitioners! The 13 Towns then stated:
“Rardin characterized his use of the term “cost analysis” as “a phrase used to describe our costs” and said there was nothing official or written as to a cost analysis.
“We were looking at our costs (Polk County) versus the cost of contracting the services,” said Rardin.
Could the Polk County Highway Dept., with its $28,964 computer setup and its 32 employees, whip up a bit more information than was presented, in print or orally, at the July 13,1994 meeting? Maybe Polk County taxpayers should DEMAND it. The July 13 meeting did not show the people that a $59,000 saving could be realized by the new plan.
••••••••••••••••••••••
So, this is a real-life example of what can happen when people in a community challenge the actions of a public official who acted while not holding a valid “oath of office.”
The interesting point is this: Title 4, Section 101 of the U.S. Code spells out the requirement of state officials to take the “oath of office” before assuming their duties, BUT it is interesting that the PENALTY for failing to take the oath of office is left very vague in the law. Why? Good question. Is there an answer we can accept? Is it not more serious when a Federal official fails to take his oath of office? More importantly, what is the penalty found in law for the FAILURE to ABIDE by one’s oath of office? Perhaps others can seek out and publicize better the answer to this question.
CitizenOne
BTTT!!
I hate to burst your balloon, but the value of oaths has gone way down since Clinton swore to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth", under oath, and didn't do it. And worse, he wasn't punished for it.
Ivan
Dear MadIvan
Please note the very last paragraph of my last posting related to "punishment" for a public official
a) not TAKING the required oath of office, whereby he does swear to God or affirm that he-she will "support the Constituton of the United States"; and
b) not properly FULFILLING his oath of office in the interests of "we, the people," of those he is to serve for the public good.
I hasten to add that the "example" given in my posting #56 above, related to the oath of the Polk County Supt. of Highways, showed the effects of a challenge by the people to the activities of a public official carried out during a time when he did not have a proper oath of office. The "oath of office" has, as it purpose, remember, to pin down every public official to the requirement that he will perform his-her duties according to the law, not according to his whim. The corrective action seen by the the people circulating a petition to have answers given by this official is the EXCEPTION, not the rule. I emphasize this. In fact, I would say that the American people see a very low percentage of adherence to the specific, delegated LIMITED powers given to officials of our three branches of government, including members of the U.S. Congress. May I point out that any number of Congressmen have tried to require that EVERY BILL put before Congress for consideration be able to show the AUTHORITY under which the particular legislation is pertinent to a "power delegated by the U.S. Constituton." That is why about 80 percent of the funding and legislation approved as Acts of Congress weakly claim that the Act is "for the general welfare." In the opinion of far-learned observers, this "catch-all" purpose has allwed everything to squeak by the checks and balances found in the U.S. Constitution. That is why much legislation, involving the use of public tax money, is really a matter of taking from the "haves" to give to the "have-nots." Just consider the billions of dollars expended and authorized for release from the U.S. Treasury to support every need of almost every foreign nation you can think of, without giving first consideration for the use of the U.S. taxpayer's money for purposes and needs recognized within the United States itself.
While the Polk County investigation was going on, this writer, CitizenOne, visited the Asst. U.S. Attorney Thor Anderson, a gentleman who had over 20 years of service in the Justice Department in Minnesota. Before a witness, I asked Mr. Anderson: "Sir, does the Federal government not concern itself with the requirement that a state officer has or has not TAKEN his oath of office?" His answer was to this effect:"Oh, we have nothing to do with that; that is left to the state officers to deal with." I then handed him a copy of Title 4, Section 101, the Federal code that demands that all state officers of all three branches take the oath of office to "support the Constitution of the United States." In honesty, I don't think he was ever aware that the Federal code held such a law. May I add that a U.S. Attorney cannot get his first check until he has taken and has on file his "oath of office," yet here is an example that a Federal law enforcement officer was not too well aware of the need for his Federal agency to be concerned with state officers who failed to even TAKE the oath of office, to say nothing about ABIDING by the oath that is taken. Upon being handed a copy of Title 4, Section 101, Mr. Anderson said nothing. May I add that if he implied that the Attorney General of Minnesota shuld have been more concerned, the oath of office question was put to the office of then Minnesota Attorney General Humphrey, and they showed no interest in investigating the Polk County Highway Supt. oath matter. The problem is not only the lack of attention to oath-taking, but also the lack of enforcement and punishment for those who fail to take the required oath. Unfortunately, the American people have ignored its true significance; they have allowed its purpose to be destroyed, as certainly intended by the Founding Fathers.
Last point: You bring up the fact that President Clinton violated his "oath" when testifying before a court of law. That is a different kind of oath, a type of oath that every person is required to take and to observe, for it not, the testimony taken would be meaningless, despite the well-known perjury punishment. Again, during the Clinton period of testimony, it has been brought out many times that even "perjury" in NOT punished in most cases, even though it means a violation of the court's very purpose of seeking the truth before make a judicial decision. How sad that is, but the posting here describes the PROBLEM; it does not claim to find the answer to all the misginvings we find in the performance of all of our public officials.
You are not breaking any balloon, if the impression was given that the example given was an overall solution; rather, you have posed another example of when an "oath" is violated when giving testimony before a court of law. It is equally serious, but wouldn't it be nice if we could secure more attention by all public officials of the significance of the "oath of office" they take to "support the U.S. Constituton" while carrying out their official duties? A lot of problems could surely be resolved if we had more dedicated public officials who felt a true obligation to adhere to the promise they made to "we, the people, whom they are to serve. As this is written, an Arkansas committee has recommended that President Clinton's conduct in the testimony that he has given be looked upon as "misconduct" and be punished by his disbarment in Arkansas. This is but a recommendation; we have yet to learn is such "punishment" will be meted out. That is for others to decide and the American public, I'm sure, expected that our President would be involved in such an embarrassing charge according to our "rule of law."
Lastly, this writer visited an American Government class composed of high school seniors. The textbook used consisted of 798 pages, two pages short of 800, and while the civics textbook had a copy of the U.S. Constitution as a part of the Appendix in the back of the textbook, NOWHERE in the other body of the textbook was there any coverage of why the "oath of office" is significant in our form of government.
Please note that there are ONLY seven Articles composing the main body of the U.S.Constitution, and Article VII centers on the Constitution's manner of being amended. Surely for this guide to our government activity, wherein the "oath of office" is spelled out in Article II and Article VI, Section 3, it becomes apparent that the "oath of office" was a deliberate safeguard, a solemn promise that is basic to the proper conduct of our public officials at all levels of government. Yet, the "oath of office" is given such little attention and meaning by the American people. Now that we have discussed the problem, it is for us to try to see if we can correct the problem and bring new meaning to the "oath of office."
It is interesting that on the 200th anniversary of the U.S. Constitution, the one book that won the most prestigious award was the book entitled "The Machine That Would Go of Itself," (the author was describing the U.S. Constituton iteself) as authored by the distinguished writer, Michael Kammen. And what is this book about? This book centers on how the U.S. Constitution is NOT understood or appreciated as our most treasured guide to self-government. I urge others to seek this book out, for it shows the general public's lack of knowledge about the U.s. Constituton. How can we expect public officials, if not members of the general public, to "support the U.S. Constitution, if indeed they know so little about what they purportedly "support"? This book, too, says little about the "oath of office." And it won an award as being the most meaningful book on the 200th anniversary of the Constitution of the United States! Lets'a face it, we are going the route of Rome; we are reveling in the equivalent of "bread and circuses" that satisfied the general populace in the final days of Rome. If we do not correct our folly, we, too, will witness our own downfall. What's the biggest form of entertainment today on the "idiot tube"? Answer: Wrestingly, or what passes for wrestling. What is the most popular movie now breaking all attendance records? It is called "Gladiator." We are being education to accept violence as a way of life.Enough said.
CitizenOne
To All
These long-winded replies on my part cause me to goof up. I want to indicate in the next to the last paragraph of my reply #59 that Article VII of the U.S. Constituton...there are only seven Articles...deals with RATIFICATION of the Constitution, NOT the manner of the Constitution's AMENDMENT. Article V of the U.S. Constitution takes up the manner of Amendment.
Sorry about that.
CitizenOne
Dear AmericaInTokyo
In your original posting you cited a form of the oath of office for officials of New Hampshire. This particular form of the oath seems to reflect that the person does not have to "support the Constitution of the United States," as required by Article VI, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. But there seems to be another oath form found in Part 2 of Article 84 of the Constitution of New Hampshire, an "Oath of Civil Officers" and it is the first oath form found in this location. It reads as follows:
I, A.B. do solemnly swear, that I will bear faith and true allegiance to the United States of America and the state of New Hampshire, and sill support the constitutions thereof. So help me God."
It therefore appears that the oath of office for Civil Officers is about the same as that found in other state constitutions, wherein the person does in his oath swear or affirm "support" to both the U.S. and particular state constitution.
The "flaw" in the North Dakota state constitution, however, is unique in that Article XI, Section 4 contains the oath form wherein the public official swears or affirms to "support" both the Federal and state constitution, BUT it requires, by pure oversight and omission, that state officers of only two of the three branches of ND state government have to take said oath...it completely leaves out any reference that "executive" state officers have to take the presecribed oath, which is repugnant to Article VI, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution and contrary to the specific language of Title 4, Section 101 of the U.S. Code.
As a result of a rash of banter and exchange of snide, cute remarks among Freepers in my original posting on April 25, 2000, the serious Federal question was reduced to the level of "loose cannons" who reflect no serious interest in a violation of the U.S. Constitution. In fact, they showed themselves only interested in exchanging weak, sike, and old jokes about North Dakota. That is fine, but it is NOT the subject under discussion, and I have suggested to the Board that maybe Freepers should be more concerned about wasting their time, if not the time of others, with such idle chatter. You, AmericanInTokyo, brought up a good point on the ignoring of the "oath of office" by our public officials, and it is too back that that subject does not have the attention of more Free Republic participants.
CitizenOne
BTTT!!!
Bush needs to grab the issue, emphasize and contrast himself with what has been happening and pledge himself to restoration of American as it was founded. Good post.
what is it about his advisors and their philosophies that would lead you to believe that it would be Governor Bush who would champion such a national concept???
A post from another thread by Redrock. Makes it pretty clear.
Question to Rice "Is that a fair criticism that the isolationist wing of the Republican Party will have control or a big part of the decision-making process in a Bush administration?
RICE: I frankly think it's a rather bizarre claim when you consider that over the last month, Governor Bush supported the administration, supported President Clinton in permanent national -- permanent normal trade relations for China. In fact, much more supportive than Vice President Gore was. That Governor Bush opposed the time limitation on American forces in Kosovo for a July 2001 deadline. Even though he has some reservations about what is going on in Kosovo, he understands the role of Congress and the role of the president in deploying American forces abroad. Governor Bush is in the internationalist tradition of the Republican Party. He's squarely someone who believes in free trade, who believes in engagement, America's role in the world. I think it's frankly just a bizarre claim."
In their own words....like father...like son.
redrock
23 Posted on 06/04/2000 21:15:14 PDT by redrock
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | Top | Last ]
Source
I conversed just yesterday to a political source in DC who told me the game is over, in terms of an effective opposition to what the Democrats want to do vs. a vs. international intervention and globalism. the source said that everyone (GOP) up there is so spineless and has had to back down, that it is truly pathetic........
I am beginning to believe they are only interested in delaying public awareness. They are doing exactly as they intend to do. Everything for public consumption is being orchestrated.
We are making progress on this forum, and if we keep on keepin on we may be able to get a ground swell reaction by November.
I saw a survey in CT that if they thought a 3rd party candidate could win who would they vote for. Bush and Gore combined got less than 50%.
There is still hope.
BTTT!!!
Bttt
I like and support the idea. Any way we can get something like this through before the next President is sworn in? Seems that is the first and most important place to start...
I would add penalties for violation of the oath of office. Introducing, supporting or intitating via Executive Order any bill, treaty or Executive Order is prima facie evidence of violation of the oath of office and subversion of the constitution. The offending officer shall be removed from office and all property of the officer shall be forfeit and the officer shall retain no rights of citizenship under the constitution
what is it about his advisors and their philosophies that would lead you to believe that it would be Governor Bush who would champion such a national concept???
LOL That was MY thought!!! I'd wager that Bush would have NO PART OF IT! And try to squash it! I think it needs to be in the hands of a PARTIOTIC person. Someone mentioned Ron Paul.
Come now. Ever since Bill Clinton the value of oaths has been in jeopardy. Words mean little if one's heart does not contain their spirit.
Ivan
Proposing the idea in the first place, and then taking stock of those who would support it (Patriots), and those who would be opposed (Traitors), and those who simply dismiss the idea (Brain dead lackies if not Traitors themselves), would be good.
I would like to have elected officials and candidates on the record. Glad you agree that this was a good idea to get the issue discussed and clearly delineate who stands where.....BUMP!!!
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.
[
Top
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |