Oath of Office: Doesn't mean squat

[NoStateofMind]

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."[60]

Source

Sounds nice doesn't it. But its only honey in your ear and Presidents have been lying about it for god knows how long (I honestly don't know). Why? Because people like you and me don't care. Oh we care on these message boards and on the phone with mom or at the coffee table with friends but thats about the extent of it. We piss and moan about how our rights are being eroded and how the next president is going to be the change we've been needing. Well he/she won't and thats the long and short of it. What the reason for todays rant? Well I saw this story a couple days ago and didn't see anything posted about it. Which goes well with the picture I've painted above. IMO stuff like this should get media attention until resolved.

The Feds Violated the Constitution but the Administration Won't Say How

The transgression occurred at the National Security Agency and involved illegal spying on Americans. The details? They're scandalously classified.

Source

How is it that you "preserve, protect, defend" the Constitution with this nonsense? The fact is they aren't and apparently could give a rats ass.

/end rant

 

[Pr0d1gy]

For their sake I hope they are not watching me jerk off.

 

[alzan]

For their sake I hope they are not watching me jerk off.

They are; and fapping themselves while they watch you fap.

Back on topic. It is concerning to me as well that so many of our rights have been eroded in the name of security in the last eleven years. I also think that the erosion of our rights has been going on for a lot longer, probably closer to 200 years, give or take.

None of the Bill of Rights were ever meant to be absolute or sacrosanct. We've always had limits on speech, religion, search and seizure, etc. It's definitely gotten worse in the last 11 years although I agree it's been getting worse since J. Edgar Hoover's time.

And the Oath of Office; pretty words. Almost as pretty as the portion of wedding vows where you promise to be faithful to your spouse, while crossing your fingers behind your back.

 

[boomerang]

We'll wake up when it's too late. We can't even vote them out to correct the problem anymore because if even one of them is left, the newcomers will be corrupted. We've got a president who campaigned on transparency, booting out lobbyists and not kowtowing to special interests and none of it has transpired. These faults are not exclusive to him. We've heard these promises before.

A well placed nuclear warhead while Congress is in session, with the White House occupied by its residents, with the SCOTUS working and all the lobbyists scurrying around would go a long way towards correcting the problem.

Disclaimer: For the less bright among us, the above paragraph is hyperbole. It is making a point using an extreme example.

We're screwed. It's just going to have to play out. Great civilizations have fallen before. We'll not blaze any new trail on the way down, we'll just repeat history.

 

[momeNt]

We need to first and foremost preserve and protect our national security, NOT THE CONSTITUTION. Without national security, we have no constitution, we would either be under Nazi rule or Shariah law.

Any instances where the administration "covers up" instances of illegal spying, or giving gift guns to mexican cartels, is aimed at enhancing our national security, without that national security we have nothing, and we must give everything to protect that national security.

In effect, protecting national security is protecting the constitution, but if we solely protect the constitution, we would no longer have it.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

We need to first and foremost preserve and protect our national security, NOT THE CONSTITUTION. Without national security, we have no constitution, we would either be under Nazi rule or Shariah law.

Any instances where the administration "covers up" instances of illegal spying, or giving gift guns to mexican cartels, is aimed at enhancing our national security, without that national security we have nothing, and we must give everything to protect that national security.

In effect, protecting national security is protecting the constitution, but if we solely protect the constitution, we would no longer have it.

lol We have hundreds of millions of citizens with guns, and a military budget larger than the next 25 countries combined. If that isn't secure then what the hell is? Paranoia is lame and died with the Cold War.

 

[momeNt]

lol We have hundreds of millions of citizens with guns, and a military budget larger than the next 25 countries combined. If that isn't secure then what the hell is? Paranoia is lame and died with the Cold War.

It died? No, the paranoia became reality, we sacrificed the constitution to arm ourselves against evildoers. When those evildoers are vanquished, we will be able to have our constitution back, until then, we must prepare to invade Iran.

 

[Anarchist420]

will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Well, the words "to the best of my ability" are in there.

The Supreme Court is supposed to uphold the U.S. Federal Constitution but then they're there to interpret it... the Articles of Confederation didn't have any loopholes like that.

 

[MovingTarget]

John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!

:hmm:

This is somehow news to you guys? Personally I see nothing wrong with the current oath of office. The problem is that the office must be filled by a personhuman.

 

[Matt1970]

lol We have hundreds of millions of citizens with guns, and a military budget larger than the next 25 countries combined. If that isn't secure then what the hell is? Paranoia is lame and died with the Cold War.

Well we could start by reducing our deployments overseas.

Germany – 53,526
Japan – 36,708
South Korea – 28,500
Italy – 10,817
United Kingdom – 9,317

Do we really need over 50K troops in Germany? Even if we don't want to cut them off the payroll, atleast get them spending thier money over here.

 

[momeNt]

Well we could start by reducing our deployments overseas.

Germany – 53,526
Japan – 36,708
South Korea – 28,500
Italy – 10,817
United Kingdom – 9,317

Do we really need over 50K troops in Germany? Even if we don't want to cut them off the payroll, atleast get them spending thier money over here.

Have you no consideration for all the Joe-Ds that will be forced out by their girlfriends' husbands? Section 8 would SKYROCKET.

 

[Matt1970]

Have you no consideration for all the Joe-Ds that will be forced out by their girlfriends' husbands? Section 8 would SKYROCKET.

LOL Ya. I am sure the divorce rate will be higher for other reasons too.....Ya know, I liked my wife a lot more when I wasn't around her much.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

It died? No, the paranoia became reality, we sacrificed the constitution to arm ourselves against evildoers. When those evildoers are vanquished, we will be able to have our constitution back, until then, we must prepare to invade Iran.

lmao seriously? roflMAO

 

[Jaskalas]

It died? No, the paranoia became reality, we sacrificed the constitution to arm ourselves against evildoers. When those evildoers are vanquished, we will be able to have our constitution back, until then, we must prepare to invade Iran.

I don't see the connection between our zeal to sacrifice troops overseas and throwing away the Bill of Rights. Iran has nothing to do with why we strip search and sexually abuse Americans at home.

If there's no Bill of Rights, then there's nothing left to fight for - you've already lost.

 

[werepossum]

Well we could start by reducing our deployments overseas.

Germany – 53,526
Japan – 36,708
South Korea – 28,500
Italy – 10,817
United Kingdom – 9,317

Do we really need over 50K troops in Germany? Even if we don't want to cut them off the payroll, at least get them spending thier money over here.

Exactly. The only one of those nations under threat is South Korea, where we're legally still at war and under an armistice. None of those countries want our armed presence, they just want the money we spend maintaining that presence. We need to expedite our withdrawal from Afghanistan, roll up our other bases, and spend our money at home building ships and planes to quickly deliver armed force anywhere it's needed rather than on bloated base bureaucracies. If one or more of those nations wants our military protection beyond our treaty obligations, let them maintain the base to our specifications.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Exactly. The only one of those nations under threat is South Korea, where we're legally still at war and under an armistice. None of those countries want our armed presence, they just want the money we spend maintaining that presence. We need to expedite our withdrawal from Afghanistan, roll up our other bases, and spend our money at home building ships and planes to quickly deliver armed force anywhere it's needed rather than on bloated base bureaucracies. If one or more of those nations wants our military protection beyond our treaty obligations, let them maintain the base to our specifications.

Well said. You're on a roll lately.