Posts
Yeah, people note that nowhere in Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution do the words "...so help me God" appear, after the oath of office.
And sure, they say the richest American about to be first president, George W. The Very First Ever, added 'em when he took the oath and thereby "established an unconstitutional custom practiced ever since."
That's beside the point.
First off, the oath requires the swearing, or affirming, party, to "preserve, protect and defend" the document ONLY "to the best of my ability." That's a loophole anyone but a comatose person could drive the contiguous 48 states through. How would you rate the "ability" of Shrub to do the "preserve, protect and defend" thang? I'd rank him at Zero (0) on a scale of 0-to-99, One (1) on a scale of 1-to-100.
That's one (I just love the way Joe The Biden 'enumerates'; don't chew. It makes him out to be everso engaged-brain-before-starting-mouth-y — even though he's not — You Go, Joe!!! Let Malapropisms Flow!!! Hoo, hoo, hoo!!!).
Item B:
The provision for the presidential oath of office should be removed by Constitutional amendment. Concomitantly, the laws requiring oaths for the 535 members of the Invertebrate American Incumbents Party (IAIP — formerly known variously as the Republicrats and/or Demicans and/or Independocratans in Congress), the Supremes — who actually have TWO useless oaths, members of the military and other "public" officials now enshrined in the US Code (annotated or not), should be repealed.
Why? Because staging these "oath of office" farces forces our highest "public" officials to begin their terms with a lie. And, when they subsequently sign, in duplicate, the hard-copy of these self-same oaths, with perjury—'cuz they've already publicly spoken-out-loud, sworn/affirmed/taken an oath, so now what was just a lie is now "a lie made under oath."
And of course it sets the precedent, from their first just-about-to-be-official act, that they can lie, perjure themselves, in public, without EVER being held to account. I mean, how bad is that for an official first precedent? Definitely double-plus ungood.
IMHO, for at least the past 8, 16, 20, 28 years, there have not been even close to a Baker's (or even Ervin's) dozen of the invertebrates in Congress who've honored their oath of office in deed, where it actually counts, rather than in word, where it doesn't count.
A far, far simpler thing would it be — and certainly far more rational — for these office-holders to say (if anything need be said at all, and I think there is NO such need), is, in the case of the president:
And a pragmatic recognition of "what the meaning of 'is' is" in the "reality-based, oath-taking, oath-faking world."
If you think this is a ridiculous idea, then you tell me what member of congress -- even in your entire recollection -- has (or have, if you think there's more than one) taken affirmative action to honor his/her oath of office. I'll give you a penny (1¢) for every one you can document. Double-dog dare yuh.
I should add that my wager is so low not because I'm uncertain of the outcome, but because I'm living well below the poverty line and can barely pay for food, clothing, shelter and internet "connectivity" as it is. (By the way, internet connectivity is clearly one of the specific rights "retained by the people" noted in Amendment IX (see also Amendment X, for powers reserved to the people, or to the states/commonwealths).
Sphere: Related Content
That's beside the point.
First off, the oath requires the swearing, or affirming, party, to "preserve, protect and defend" the document ONLY "to the best of my ability." That's a loophole anyone but a comatose person could drive the contiguous 48 states through. How would you rate the "ability" of Shrub to do the "preserve, protect and defend" thang? I'd rank him at Zero (0) on a scale of 0-to-99, One (1) on a scale of 1-to-100.
That's one (I just love the way Joe The Biden 'enumerates'; don't chew. It makes him out to be everso engaged-brain-before-starting-mouth-y — even though he's not — You Go, Joe!!! Let Malapropisms Flow!!! Hoo, hoo, hoo!!!).
Item B:
The provision for the presidential oath of office should be removed by Constitutional amendment. Concomitantly, the laws requiring oaths for the 535 members of the Invertebrate American Incumbents Party (IAIP — formerly known variously as the Republicrats and/or Demicans and/or Independocratans in Congress), the Supremes — who actually have TWO useless oaths, members of the military and other "public" officials now enshrined in the US Code (annotated or not), should be repealed.
Why? Because staging these "oath of office" farces forces our highest "public" officials to begin their terms with a lie. And, when they subsequently sign, in duplicate, the hard-copy of these self-same oaths, with perjury—'cuz they've already publicly spoken-out-loud, sworn/affirmed/taken an oath, so now what was just a lie is now "a lie made under oath."
And of course it sets the precedent, from their first just-about-to-be-official act, that they can lie, perjure themselves, in public, without EVER being held to account. I mean, how bad is that for an official first precedent? Definitely double-plus ungood.
IMHO, for at least the past 8, 16, 20, 28 years, there have not been even close to a Baker's (or even Ervin's) dozen of the invertebrates in Congress who've honored their oath of office in deed, where it actually counts, rather than in word, where it doesn't count.
A far, far simpler thing would it be — and certainly far more rational — for these office-holders to say (if anything need be said at all, and I think there is NO such need), is, in the case of the president:
"I, [name of president-elect] am now the President of the United States. And you're not." [Any attendant "Nyah, nyah, nyuh nyah nyah"s would be considered optional.]And in the case of all IAIP members and every other "public" official:
"I, [Caroline Kennedy, say], am now [a/the] Senator from New York. And you're not." [Ditto on the "Nyah, nyah"s.]Simple. Direct. Honest. To the point. (Think of how refreshingly candid Speaker of the House Nancy The Constitution Is Now Off the Table Pelosi was before taking her most recent oath of office in 2007. I mean, how ridiculous was it that she actually went through the charade of swearing to support and defend what she'd already declared suspended? I'm just sayin'.)
And a pragmatic recognition of "what the meaning of 'is' is" in the "reality-based, oath-taking, oath-faking world."
If you think this is a ridiculous idea, then you tell me what member of congress -- even in your entire recollection -- has (or have, if you think there's more than one) taken affirmative action to honor his/her oath of office. I'll give you a penny (1¢) for every one you can document. Double-dog dare yuh.
I should add that my wager is so low not because I'm uncertain of the outcome, but because I'm living well below the poverty line and can barely pay for food, clothing, shelter and internet "connectivity" as it is. (By the way, internet connectivity is clearly one of the specific rights "retained by the people" noted in Amendment IX (see also Amendment X, for powers reserved to the people, or to the states/commonwealths).
0 comments:
Post a Comment