There is nothing in the Constituion that says they have to take the oath before serving. Nothing. Just saying it over and over and over again doesn't make it so. Again, compare Article II, where the oath is a prerequisite with Articles II and VI and the difference is plain.
On the very day Republicans read the Constitution, two House Republicans violate it
- Thread starter Bfgrn
- Start date
There is nothing in the Constituion that says they have to take the oath before serving. Nothing. Just saying it over and over and over again doesn't make it so. Again, compare Article II, where the oath is a prerequisite with Articles II and VI and the difference is plain.
*sigh*
It says that they all shall be bound in order to hold the office. Now that we know that shall is an imperative and that in order to actually "be bound" one has to take the oath or affirmation, we consequently know that the oath or affirmation must be taken before taking the office. It's silly to pretend otherwise because you want to be right so badly.
The reason they only violated congressional rules wasn't because they could hold the office and take the oath or affirmation later, it was because who administers it and where isn't covered except in the Congressional rules. They bound themselves to an oath in front of witnesses, that would be enough for the constitution. Even the "in front of witnesses" isn't required.
You should really take your own advice. Of the two of us, I'm not the one that needs it.
The ever popular "I know you are but what am I?" defense. Cute. So far I've cited legal dictionaries, you've cited your own insistence you are right based on the fact that you really really want to be.
Yeah, it really is you who needs it... even if you try the rubber/glue defense next.
No, it does not. Again, look to Article II for a provision of the Constitution that requires the taking of an oath to hold the office.
The time at which a member of Congress must be bound is not specified.
They didn't bind themselves to an oath at all, as the oath was not properly administered.
The ever popular "I know you are but what am I?" defense. Cute. So far I've cited legal dictionaries, you've cited your own insistence you are right based on the fact that you really really want to be.
Yeah, it really is you who needs it... even if you try the rubber/glue defense next.
I've cited the Constitution and the Acts of 1789. You've cited law.com and your citation supports what I've been saying, that oaths are administered by persons authorized to administer them.
Right, so long as they are bound they can hold the office. They can be bound so at any time before they take office they can take it, but they cannot be bound until they do.
It is an imperative that they be bound to hold the office.... so sometime before they begin in the office they must take that oath or affirmation. There really is no way around that absolute requirement that they be bound in order to hold the office. Even if you squint real hard there isn't. They can't hold it without being bound by the oath or affirmation, it is what the sentence means.
I'm well aware of what shall means. Your condescending posture is cute, but it doesn't make you correct.
So, although I linked to a legal dictionary and pointed out that the definition in legal terms is exactly what I stated it is you are still going to pretend that you know better. That's time I'd really like to have back. You've turned into Dixie in a 1/3 argument.
You keep on fabricating that it is a prerequisite to hold office. It isn't. If it were, the Constitution would say so, as it does with the president. You reading means that the requirement in Article II that the president take the oath before holding office is unnecessary surplussage, which offends the most basic principles of Constitutional interpretation.
I'm sorry that you are so damned certain that you are right that you resort to childish horseshit, but you're wrong.
In order to be a Congressperson one must be bound by an oath or affirmation to uphold the constitution. It is what the sentence means.
So, yes, it is clearly required to hold the office. In order to be bound one must take the oath prior to holding the office, there is no other way to bind them to such an oath or affirmation. One cannot hold the office without being bound, it is what the sentence means.
Again, "childish sh*t" is posting legal definitions, while your argument so far is based on nothing more than you really really think so. You were wrong, you don't want to be wrong. I understand that, but you hold forth nothing that even remotely supports your insistence. I've posted the definitions that showed I was correct. You've just reasserted your strong desire to be right.
signalmankenneth
Verified User
We The People?
MARK KARLIN, BUZZFLASH EDITOR FOR TRUTHOUT
I support the Constitution, don't you? But I don't support the fundamentalist, "literalist" Sharia version that the GOP touts.
I think that the Constitution is a remarkable document in the development of governments that empowered individuals against oppressive rule and institutions.
It overthrew the privileged reign of royal lineage and put the direction of America in the hands of the population at large. You could argue that the Constitution is the ultimate populist charter for a nation. But on Thursday, the GOP is putting on a political theater performance in the House by reading the Constitution out loud, even though the new red tide of right-wingers don't support large chunks of it, such as the 14th Amendment, the 17th Amendment, and much, much more.
Here is the preamble to the Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Since when did the GOP promote the general welfare of the nation?
Instead, we get a GOP Sharia "strict constructionist," authoritarian interpretation of the Constitution that is akin to Osama bin Laden's "literal" interpretation of the Koran.
John Boenher, we don't want a fundamentalist, corporate-financed corruption of the Constitution; we want the real thing.
MARK KARLIN, BUZZFLASH EDITOR FOR TRUTHOUT
I support the Constitution, don't you? But I don't support the fundamentalist, "literalist" Sharia version that the GOP touts.
I think that the Constitution is a remarkable document in the development of governments that empowered individuals against oppressive rule and institutions.
It overthrew the privileged reign of royal lineage and put the direction of America in the hands of the population at large. You could argue that the Constitution is the ultimate populist charter for a nation. But on Thursday, the GOP is putting on a political theater performance in the House by reading the Constitution out loud, even though the new red tide of right-wingers don't support large chunks of it, such as the 14th Amendment, the 17th Amendment, and much, much more.
Here is the preamble to the Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Since when did the GOP promote the general welfare of the nation?
Instead, we get a GOP Sharia "strict constructionist," authoritarian interpretation of the Constitution that is akin to Osama bin Laden's "literal" interpretation of the Koran.
John Boenher, we don't want a fundamentalist, corporate-financed corruption of the Constitution; we want the real thing.
What's this "we" stuff Kenneth? You're not in this fire, saying "we" is a bit much.
MARK KARLIN, BUZZFLASH EDITOR FOR TRUTHOUT
I support the Constitution, don't you? But I don't support the fundamentalist, "literalist" Sharia version that the GOP touts.
I think that the Constitution is a remarkable document in the development of governments that empowered individuals against oppressive rule and institutions.
It overthrew the privileged reign of royal lineage and put the direction of America in the hands of the population at large. You could argue that the Constitution is the ultimate populist charter for a nation. But on Thursday, the GOP is putting on a political theater performance in the House by reading the Constitution out loud, even though the new red tide of right-wingers don't support large chunks of it, such as the 14th Amendment, the 17th Amendment, and much, much more.
Here is the preamble to the Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Since when did the GOP promote the general welfare of the nation?
Instead, we get a GOP Sharia "strict constructionist," authoritarian interpretation of the Constitution that is akin to Osama bin Laden's "literal" interpretation of the Koran.
John Boenher, we don't want a fundamentalist, corporate-financed corruption of the Constitution; we want the real thing.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Because then he wouldn't be able to drag the discussion off on one of his patented Yurtangents again.
..."Republicans killed a Democratic measure that would have forced members and staff to disclose whether they use federally funded health care..."
http://www.slate.com/id/2280344/
http://www.slate.com/id/2280344/
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
lol....is there a "right" way to number pages?.....is that like there's a "right" way to swear in Congressmen?.....