On the very day Republicans read the Constitution, two House Republicans violate it

NigelTufnel said:
It just says that they shall be bound, not that they shall be bound by oath or affirmation before they serve. By contrast, Article II makes it plain that the President must take the oath of office prior to serving: Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"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."

Given the framers made clear that the president must be bound by the oath of office prior to serving but did not do the same thing for members of Congress, taking of the oath is not a constitutional prerequisite to service at all. So I guess I agree with you that there is no constitutional violation here, but for different reasons.




I disagree that taking the oath by closed circuit TV is appropriate. That's just not how oaths are administered.




And cucumbers taste better pickled.
Click to expand...
You are wrong, in Article VI, Paragraph 3 it specifically states that they shall be "bound by" the oath or affirmation.

Whether or not it is "appropriate" isn't based on the constitution, it is based on the rules of the Congress which can be changed by simple vote. One thing you can be certain of it isn't "simple" to change the constitution.
 
Yurt said:
i don't take her seriously...and i occasionally use the same hyperbole, but i do so because it really bothers this one poster

:)
Click to expand...

You post specifically to bother posters?

Wow - now that certainly seems like attacking, by your definition.

More Yurtsie hypocrisy...I'll wait a few minutes for the next example....
 
Onceler said:
You post specifically to bother posters?

Wow - now that certainly seems like attacking, by your definition.

More Yurtsie hypocrisy...I'll wait a few minutes for the next example....
Click to expand...

no, that is not my definition, more lies from you, i only do so to you and getting under your skin is not attacking you, its simply getting a rise out of you and its hilarious to watch you get all pissy

there is no hypocrisy on my part, only whiny onceler crying about attacks and one liners while doing the exact same thing over and over
 
Yurt said:
no, that is not my definition, more lies from you, i only do so to you and getting under your skin is not attacking you, its simply getting a rise out of you and its hilarious to watch you get all pissy

there is no hypocrisy on my part, only whiny onceler crying about attacks and one liners while doing the exact same thing over and over
Click to expand...

Projecting once again!
 
Yurt said:
no, that is not my definition, more lies from you, i only do so to you and getting under your skin is not attacking you, its simply getting a rise out of you and its hilarious to watch you get all pissy

there is no hypocrisy on my part, only whiny onceler crying about attacks and one liners while doing the exact same thing over and over
Click to expand...

Whiny? You're the one who's all "Rana's attacking me! Christie's attacking me! Onceler's attacking me! Attacks, attacks, attacks!"

I think you're confused on the whining thing. Just my humble opinion, of course...I hope you don't think I'm attacking you with it....
 
Damocles said:
You are wrong, in Article VI, Paragraph 3 it specifically states that they shall be "bound by" the oath or affirmation.
Click to expand...


No, I'm correct. It doesn't specify when the shall be bound by oath of affirmation and given the portion that I quoted with respect to the president, it would be entirely improper read Article VI as you read it.

Damocles said:
Whether or not it is "appropriate" isn't based on the constitution, it is based on the rules of the Congress which can be changed by simple vote. One thing you can be certain of it isn't "simple" to change the constitution.
Click to expand...

No, it's based on the Constitution and the meanings of the terms oath or affirmation.
 
Onceler said:
Whiny? You're the one who's all "Rana's attacking me! Christie's attacking me! Onceler's attacking me! Attacks, attacks, attacks!"

I think you're confused on the whining thing. Just my humble opinion, of course...I hope you don't think I'm attacking you with it....
Click to expand...

i see, so pointing out your hypocrisy when you attack me is whining...lol...you just sank your own boat, because you have said people insult and attack, so by your definition, you're a whiner oncler...thank you :)

do you ever debate? because all i basically is whining and projecting...whining about others and then turning around and doing the very things you're whining about

everyday onceler...you can't stop the insulting, yet you whine when others do so, you refuse to end the insults and solely debate me, yet you whine that others are attacking and insulting
 
Whaaaaaaa! Whaaaaaa! Damo - they're attacking me! They're attacking me! Make them stop! Whaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!

Oh - sorry; I thought I was Yurtsie for a sec...
 
Onceler said:
Whaaaaaaa! Whaaaaaa! Damo - they're attacking me! They're attacking me! Make them stop! Whaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!

Oh - sorry; I thought I was Yurtsie for a sec...
Click to expand...

lol - funny lies

classic meltdown and total projection...you do that well onceler, very convincing, oh thats right, because its what you do
 
NigelTufnel said:
No, I'm correct. It doesn't specify when the shall be bound by oath of affirmation and given the portion that I quoted with respect to the president, it would be entirely improper read Article VI as you read it.



No, it's based on the Constitution and the meanings of the terms oath or affirmation.
Click to expand...
One cannot be bound by an oath until they take an oath. You've got your tenses wrong and need to take remedial English classes.
 
NigelTufnel said:
No, I'm correct. It doesn't specify when the shall be bound by oath of affirmation and given the portion that I quoted with respect to the president, it would be entirely improper read Article VI as you read it.



No, it's based on the Constitution and the meanings of the terms oath or affirmation.
Click to expand...
One more time: That an Oath must be taken is in the Constitution, how it is applied isn't. That they set rules doesn't make those rules part of the Constitution any more than any other Congressional rule. The constitution isn't as easy to change as a Congressional rule, if they wished they could make it perfectly acceptable to take it over TV per their rules. These guys violated Congressional rules, not "the Constitution"...
 
Damocles said:
One more time: That an Oath must be taken is in the Constitution, how it is applied isn't. That they set rules doesn't make those rules part of the Constitution any more than any other Congressional rule. The constitution isn't as easy to change as a Congressional rule, if they wished they could make it perfectly acceptable to take it over TV per their rules. These guys violated Congressional rules, not "the Constitution"...
Click to expand...

this 100% correct
 
Damocles said:
One cannot be bound by an oath until they take an oath. You've got your tenses wrong and need to take remedial English classes.
Click to expand...


The document says nothing about the point in time at which they shall be bound. As such, it doesn't matter when it happens. By contrast, the President shall be bound prior to entering office.
 
Damocles said:
One more time: That an Oath must be taken is in the Constitution, how it is applied isn't. That they set rules doesn't make those rules part of the Constitution any more than any other Congressional rule. The constitution isn't as easy to change as a Congressional rule, if they wished they could make it perfectly acceptable to take it over TV per their rules. These guys violated Congressional rules, not "the Constitution"...
Click to expand...


I understand that Congressional rules are not part of the Constitution. My position is simply that (1) they didn't violated the Constitution because it does not require that the oath be taken prior to serving and (2) that if the Constitution does require that the oath be taken prior to serving (as you claim) then having the oath administered by watching it on TV does not meet the constitutional requirement and, therefore, they did violate the Constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top