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

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

so you actually read:

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

as meaning they do not have to be bound by the oath or affirmation until....say.....they're last day in office? how can they be a rep, unless, they are first bound by their oath or affirmation?
 
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.


You're being quite silly now. An oath (or affirmation) by its very nature requires a person to administer the oath.
 
You're being quite silly now. An oath (or affirmation) by its very nature requires a person to administer the oath.

really? can you cite that in the constitution?

you keep running from it and keep desperately claiming its really there, you just can't see it....but, its really there

like i said, they detailed the presidential requirements, they could have, but did not, do the same for congress or the senate
 
so you actually read:



as meaning they do not have to be bound by the oath or affirmation until....say.....they're last day in office? how can they be a rep, unless, they are first bound by their oath or affirmation?


As compared to Article II and reading the Constitution as a whole, I read that as requiring an oath but not specifying when the oath must be taken. It certainly does not require it as a prerequisite to taking office. Indeed, if it were a prerequisite to taking office, it would appear in Article I (as the oath requirement for the president appears in Article II).
 
really? can you cite that in the constitution?

you keep running from it and keep desperately claiming its really there, you just can't see it....but, its really there

like i said, they detailed the presidential requirements, they could have, but did not, do the same for congress or the senate


I'm saying it's implicit in the term "oath." Can you name a single oath that is not administered by one person to another?
 
As compared to Article II and reading the Constitution as a whole, I read that as requiring an oath but not specifying when the oath must be taken. It certainly does not require it as a prerequisite to taking office. Indeed, if it were a prerequisite to taking office, it would appear in Article I (as the oath requirement for the president appears in Article II).

amaziing how you completely ignored the discussion and ranted on about something you and i agree on....again:

requires a person to administer the oath.

where is that in the constitution?
 
I'm saying it's implicit in the term "oath." Can you name a single oath that is not administered by one person to another?
Each time you "sear to god" it is an oath. Can you tell me where it is required that "somebody" administer each time you swear an oath or affirm yourself to something?

Show me where it says that it is "administered" in this definition... (it doesn't say it, it especially doesn't say that it is "always" administered. The reason that we have somebody administer it is because then one can be sure one has actually sworn such an other or made such an affirmation not because it is required that somebody administer it to make it an oath.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/oath

or this one:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/affirmation
 
I can't believe this thread fail has gone on for nine pages.....I guess it just shows you how desperate the liberals are to come up with something to criticize.....
 
I can't believe this thread fail has gone on for nine pages.....I guess it just shows you how desperate the liberals are to come up with something to criticize.....


If this thread is nine pages for you, you're doing it wrong.

And my position is that these members of Congress did nothing improper.
 
Cite a legal dictionary and I'll play, but I thought you were finished with this conversation.
Or you can to prove your assertion that somebody must administer every oath. You're done because you can't. I'm good with that. I was going to be done, but then there was a new conversation not a constant repetition of what 'shall' means in a legal context.

One can find legal dictionaries online though.

Let's find "shall" and see what it says.

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1945

v. 1) an imperative command as in "you shall not kill." 2) in some statutes, "shall" is a direction but does not mean mandatory, depending on the context.

Interesting. It appears that I was right. Since it isn't a statute, we'll take that first definition. It is how it is applied.
 
Or you can to prove your assertion that somebody must administer every oath. You're done because you can't. I'm good with that.


Well, if we look to the Acts of 1789 it is clear that the first Congress felt it necessary to specify whom must administer the oath of office:

Be it enacted, etc., That the oath or affirmation required by the sixth article of the constitution of the United States, shall be administered in the form following, to wit, "I, A B, do solemnly swear or affirm, (as the case may be,) that I will support the constitution of the United States." The said oath or affirmation shall be administered within three days after the passing of this act, by any one member of the senate, to the president of the senate, and by him to all the members, and to the secretary; and by the speaker of the house of representatives, to all the members who have not taken a similar oath, by virtue of a particular resolution of the said house, and to the clerk: and in case of the absence of any member from the service of either house, at the time prescribed for taking the said oath or affirmation, the same shall be administered to such member when he shall appear to take his seat.

That at the first session of congress after every general election of representatives, the oath or affirmation aforesaid shall be administered by any one member of the House of Representatives to the speaker; and by him to all the members present, and to the clerk, previous to entering on any other business; and to the members who shall afterwards appear, previous to taking their seats. The president of the senate for the time being, shall also administer the said oath or affirmation to each senator who shall hereafter be elected, previous to his taking his seat; and in any future case of a president of the senate, who shall not have taken the said oath or affirmation, the same shall be administered to him by any one of the members of the Senate.

That the members of the several state legislatures, at the next session of the said legislatures respectively, and all executive and judicial officers of the several states, who have been heretofore chosen or appointed, or, who shall be chosen or appointed before the first day of August next, and who shall then be in office, shall, within one month thereafter, take the same oath or affirmation, except where they shall have taken it before which may be administered by any person authorized by the law of the state, in which such office shall be holden, to administer oaths. And the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers of the several states, who shall be chosen or appointed after the said first day of August, shall, before they proceed to execute the duties of their respective offices, take the foregoing oath or affirmation, which shall be administered by the person or persons, who, by the law of the state, shall be authorized to administer the oath of office; and the person or persons so administering the oath hereby required to be taken, shall cause a record or certificate thereof to be made, in the same manner as by the law of the state he or they shall be directed to record or certify the oath of office.

That all officers appointed or hereafter to be appointed, under the authority of the United States, shall, before they act in their respective offices, take the same oath or affirmation, which shall be administered by the person or persons who shall be authorized by law to administer to such officers their respective oaths of office; and such officers shall incur the same penalties in case of failure, as shall be imposed by law in case of failure in taking their respective oaths of office.

That the secretary of the Senate, and the clerk of the House of Representatives, for the time being, shall, at the time of taking the oath or affirmation aforesaid, each take an oath or affirmation in the words following, to wit; "I, A B, secretary of the Senate, or clerk of the House of Representatives (as the case may be) of the United States of America, do solemnly swear or affirm, that I will truly and faithfully discharge the duties of my said office to the best of my knowledge and abilities."


Now, you may notice that, as a statutory requirement, persons must take the oath of office before acting in their respective offices, but that is imposed by statute, not the Constitution.
 
Well, if we look to the Acts of 1789 it is clear that the first Congress felt it necessary to specify whom must administer the oath of office:




Now, you may notice that, as a statutory requirement, persons must take the oath of office before acting in their respective offices, but that is imposed by statute, not the Constitution.
Again. To serve they are required to "be bound" (as I pointed out when I linked to "shall" in the legal dictionary). One cannot "be bound" without taking the oath. It is shaving a bald guy to pretend that it is somehow "vague" on this matter. In order to hold the office you must (as shall is an imperative) be bound by an oath or affirmation. Now the statutory requirement says who and where as well as when, but that simply meets the requirement, the who and where is what isn't required. The what, why, and when is. In order to hold the office you must "be bound", it is what the sentence means.
 
As for Oath...

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1361

While it does mention that in court it is administered, it is simply describing a scenario. We find that an Oath is the same thing that I said. Interesting.


It is interesting that you poo-poo the fact that the definition speaks of administering the oath. Oaths are administered, as the definition makes clear.

And if you look to the statute that I posted above it makes quite clear that oaths of office must be administered by a person authorized to administer oaths.
 
It is interesting that you poo-poo the fact that the definition speaks of administering the oath. Oaths are administered, as the definition makes clear.

And if you look to the statute that I posted above it makes quite clear that oaths of office must be administered by a person authorized to administer oaths.
No, the definition doesn't say anything about it not being an oath if it wasn't administered. It simply gives an example of one scenario where an oath is administered.

It's like you believe that the "used in a sentence" portion in a dictionary is part of the definition or something. You really do need remedial English, previously I was mocking, but when you go into inanities like that it becomes glaringly obvious you have a depth of misunderstanding that most people who graduate high school do not.
 
Again. To serve they are required to "be bound" (as I pointed out when I linked to "shall" in the legal dictionary). One cannot "be bound" without taking the oath. It is shaving a bald guy to pretend that it is somehow "vague" on this matter. In order to hold the office you must (as shall is an imperative) be bound by an oath or affirmation. Now the statutory requirement says who and where as well as when, but that simply meets the requirement, the who and where is what isn't required. The what, why, and when is. In order to hold the office you must "be bound", it is what the sentence means.

Under the Constitution they have to take an oath, but it isn't a prerequisite to service. Starting out a sentence with "To serve . . ." does not make it so. You keep assuming your conclusion.
 
Under the Constitution they have to take an oath, but it isn't a prerequisite to service. Starting out a sentence with "To serve . . ." does not make it so. You keep assuming your conclusion.
No they have to "be bound" by the oath to hold the office, per the constitution. That you want to be right so badly you'll ignore actual meaning doesn't make you right. First you tried to tell me that it was future tense because of "shall", now at least you realize that I was right about the word "shall", it is simply an imperative not a tense-setting word in that document. You really should study up on things like this, your understanding of the document will be enhanced, and you will become more credible when making this type of argument. If you are going to split hairs, you really need to know what the words mean first.
 
No, the definition doesn't say anything about it not being an oath if it wasn't administered. It simply gives an example of one scenario where an oath is administered.

It's like you believe that the "used in a sentence" portion in a dictionary is part of the definition or something. You really do need remedial English, previously I was mocking, but when you go into inanities like that it becomes glaringly obvious you have a depth of misunderstanding that most people who graduate high school do not.


You crack me up, particularly when you start with the childish insults. When you resort to using "inane" and the like it makes me smile.
 
Back
Top