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

[Damocles]

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.

Yet it does. They must be bound to serve as Congresspersons, it is clear. According to the rules of grammar, one cannot be bound without first taking an oath or affirmation. It doesn't say "will be" it uses the past tense for a reason.

I'm good with your attempt to tweak your way out using actual language in the constitution, it is where we find that there is no requirement as to where they take the oath, or which ceremony. The problem is you have to actually pretend you don't understand English to make it plausible.

And again, it doesn't say where they have to take the oath, they were constitutionally sound (took the oath), just not congressionally sound (didn't take it where they should according to congressional rules).

 

[Bonestorm]

Yet it does. They must be bound to serve as Congresspersons, it is clear. According to the rules of grammar, one cannot be bound without first taking an oath or affirmation.

It doesn't say that they must be bound to serve as Congresspersons. You are reading that into the document and there is no reason to do so.

I'm good with your attempt to tweak your way out using actual language in the constitution. The problem is you have to actually pretend you don't understand English to make it plausible.

I'm not tweaking my way out of anything. The framers made it plain that they knew full well how to require a person to be bound by oath prior to entering into office. The president is required to take the oath "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office." The presence of this language in Article II and its omission in Article VI must be presumed to be intentional such that the oath is not a requirement for Congresspersons before they enter on the execution of their office.

The "shall be bound" language imposes a future requirement but the document does not state at what point in the future it must be fulfilled.

And again, it doesn't say where they have to take the oath, they were constitutionally sound (took the oath), just not congressionally sound.

I have no issue with where they took it. I have an issue with the manner in which they took it, i.e., outside of the presence of a person authorized to administer the oath.

 

[Damocles]

It doesn't say that they must be bound to serve as Congresspersons. You are reading that into the document and there is no reason to do so.




I'm not tweaking my way out of anything. The framers made it plain that they knew full well how to require a person to be bound by oath prior to entering into office. The president is required to take the oath "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office." The presence of this language in Article II and its omission in Article VI must be presumed to be intentional such that the oath is not a requirement for Congresspersons before they enter on the execution of their office.

The "shall be bound" language imposes a future requirement but the document does not state at what point in the future it must be fulfilled.



I have no issue with where they took it. I have an issue with the manner in which they took it, i.e., outside of the presence of a person authorized to administer the oath.

It does. I even gave you where. You are attempting to split hairs, but you chose a bald man to attempt to get the hair from. I'm good with that, at least you understand that they didn't violate the constitution, even if your reasoning is bad. Shall doesn't denote "future" in law it means that it is absolutely required. "Be bound" is past tense, "will be bound" is future the language isn't vague.

You really should take some form of remedial English education. The only thing they "violated" was a congressional rule. Probably set so they can be sure that they are "bound" by that oath or affirmation.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

It doesn't say that they must be bound to serve as Congresspersons. You are reading that into the document and there is no reason to do so.




I'm not tweaking my way out of anything. The framers made it plain that they knew full well how to require a person to be bound by oath prior to entering into office. The president is required to take the oath "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office." The presence of this language in Article II and its omission in Article VI must be presumed to be intentional such that the oath is not a requirement for Congresspersons before they enter on the execution of their office.

The "shall be bound" language imposes a future requirement but the document does not state at what point in the future it must be fulfilled.



I have no issue with where they took it. I have an issue with the manner in which they took it, i.e., outside of the presence of a person authorized to administer the oath.

please point to the section in the constition where it requires an authorized person to administer the oath OR affirmation

 

[Bonestorm]

It does. I even gave you where. You are attempting to split hairs, but you chose a bald man to attempt to get the hair from. I'm good with that, at least you understand that they didn't violate the constitution, even if your reasoning is bad.

Could you point to the post? Perhaps I missed it. Alternatively, you could highlight the specific language of Article VI. Here it is:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

I see nothing to indicate that the oath is a requirement prior to serving. Contrast with Article II:

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."

 

[Damocles]

Could you point to the post? Perhaps I missed it. Alternatively, you could highlight the specific language of Article VI. Here it is:




I see nothing to indicate that the oath is a requirement prior to serving. Contrast with Article II:

Again, one cannot be "bound" until they have taken the oath or obligation. In law "shall" simply means it is absolutely required. We're repeating ourselves. Again, I'm good with that. We agree that they didn't violate the constitution, even if your reasoning is that of an ESL student.

 

[Bonestorm]

please point to the section in the constition where it requires an authorized person to administer the oath OR affirmation

It's implicit in the concept of an oath or affirmation. Are you suggesting that, for constitutional purposes, congresspersons can be administered the oath anywhere and by anyone?

 

[Bonestorm]

It does. I even gave you where. You are attempting to split hairs, but you chose a bald man to attempt to get the hair from. I'm good with that, at least you understand that they didn't violate the constitution, even if your reasoning is bad. Shall doesn't denote "future" in law it means that it is absolutely required. "Be bound" is past tense, "will be bound" is future the language isn't vague.

You really should take some form of remedial English education. The only thing they "violated" was a congressional rule. Probably set so they can be sure that they are "bound" by that oath or affirmation.

You're nuts. Shall denotes a future requirement to be fulfilled. The requirement to be fulfilled is that they be bound by oath. The point in time in the future that they be bound by oath is unspecified.

 

[Damocles]

You're nuts. Shall denotes a future requirement to be fulfilled. The requirement to be fulfilled is that they be bound by oath. The point in time in the future that they be bound by oath is unspecified.

I'm not. Ask a constitutional attorney. "Shall" indicates that it is absolutely required, not "future". I'll wait, because I know that I am 100% correct. You can compare it to other places where "shall" is used, you'll be surprised.

 

[Bonestorm]

Again, one cannot be "bound" until they have taken the oath or obligation. In law "shall" simply means it is absolutely required. We're repeating ourselves. Again, I'm good with that. We agree that they didn't violate the constitution, even if your reasoning is that of an ESL student.

There is nothing that specifies at what point in time relative to their service the requirement must be fulfilled, unlike in Article II. Your reading means that the "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office" language in Article II is mere surplussage, which offends basic principles of constitutional construction.

 

[Damocles]

There is nothing that specifies at what point in time relative to their service the requirement must be fulfilled, unlike in Article II. Your reading means that the "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office" language in Article II is mere surplussage, which offends basic principles of constitutional construction.

Again, splitting that hair from a bald guy. It's imaginary, but split away.

One cannot "be bound" if they haven't taken the oath or affirmation. It isn't possible. The language isn't vague, you just attempt to pretend you can't understand it. I'm good with that. We've come to the same conclusion, even if you do believe that 2+2 is 5.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

It's implicit in the concept of an oath or affirmation. Are you suggesting that, for constitutional purposes, congresspersons can be administered the oath anywhere and by anyone?

its implicit? really....can you point to that in the constitution?

it does not say administered - it says:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution

i swear to uphold the constitution, i affirm that i will uphold the constitution


that is all the constitution requires

 

[Bonestorm]

Again, splitting that hair from a bald guy. It's imaginary, but split away.

One cannot "be bound" if they haven't taken the oath or affirmation. It isn't possible. The language isn't vague, you just attempt to pretend you can't understand it. I'm good with that. We've come to the same conclusion, even if you do believe that 2+2 is 5.

I don't disagree that one cannot be bound if they haven't taken the oath or affirmation. I'm simply pointing out that being bound by oath or affirmation is not a prerequisite to serving as a member of Congress. You say it is a prerequisite even though there is nothing in the Constitution that says so, unlike with the president.

 

[Damocles]

Did you know that even the Oath itself isn't listed in the constitution, only the requirement that they be bound by an oath or affirmation that they will support the constitution?

While the rules were set, and the entire Congress has taken an oath or affirmation, plus 1/3 of the Senate, since the first Congress, there is no requirement it be taken in that way in the constitution. Only that they be bound by an oath to serve. And not just them, but every Executive, legislator and judicial officer in every single state must so swear or affirm in order to serve in that capacity.

 

[Damocles]

I don't disagree that one cannot be bound if they haven't taken the oath or affirmation. I'm simply pointing out that being bound by oath or affirmation is not a prerequisite to serving as a member of Congress. You say it is a prerequisite even though there is nothing in the Constitution that says so, unlike with the president.

Again, in order to be a Congressman, an executive, legislator, or judge in any of the states the Constitution holds that they must be bound. One cannot be bound after the fact. Your reasoning is silly.

 

[Bonestorm]

its implicit? really....can you point to that in the constitution?

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the meaning of the term "implicit." I suggest you look it up.

it does not say administered - it says:

i swear to uphold the constitution, i affirm that i will uphold the constitution

that is all the constitution requires

You're saying that the oath does not have to be administered by anyone at all? That's nonsense.

 

[Damocles]

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the meaning of the term "implicit." I suggest you look it up.



You're saying that the oath does not have to be administered by anyone at all? That's nonsense.

Yet it is true. It only requires that to serve in that office one must be bound by an oath or affirmation to support the constitution.

 

[Bonestorm]

Again, in order to be a Congressman, an executive, legislator, or judge in any of the states the Constitution holds that they must be bound. One cannot be bound after the fact. Your reasoning is silly.

But the Constitution does not say "in order to be . . ." That's my point.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the meaning of the term "implicit." I suggest you look it up.



You're saying that the oath does not have to be administered by anyone at all? That's nonsense.

no, point to where in the constitution it allows an "implicit" reading

i'm not saying anything, YOU are....and you can't cite the constitution to back up your claims

think about it, the founders took care to detail the presidential requirements, yet, they were not so detailed with congress. that expressly indicates they purposefully created different requirements. and shows your implicit argument is full of cow patty.

 

[Damocles]

But the Constitution does not say "in order to be . . ." That's my point.

You really don't have a point. It has been an interesting conversation, but now it is just repeating.