#constitutional oath

[hale-nathan]

Trump Weird News - Trump Disintegrating

Demeans Oath To Constitution

Rejects "Don't Speak" Strategy

Exhibits Diarrhea Of The Mouth

Vows To Pardon 1-6 Rioters

Project 2035 Is Leaked

They Steal His Biddie Doll

They Sicced That Woman On Him

Counter-Punched Poorly With JD

Lost It, Endangering Pets & People

Final Crumble, Refuses To Debate "Her"

[liberalsarecool]

Rep James Talarico [D-TX] is making point after point, showing how Republicans are putting the Ten Commandments above the Constitution.

Vote the christofascist GOP out of every office.

[freedomrobot]

Letter to congress 07-01-24 Oath of Office

Oath of Office

[onenakedfarmer]

OATH OF OFFICE FOR US MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.

-

SITTING MEMBER OF CONGRESS LAUREN BOEBERT

I’m tired of this separation of church and state junk that’s not in the Constitution. It was in a stinking letter, and it means nothing like what they say it does.

[vintageseawitch]

this is the original title of the Project 2025 book featuring a foreword written by JD Vance. they have since changed the title to "Taking Back Washington to Save America."

the contents are the same. they want to rip away our government. they want to forsake the Constitution. veterans & active duty military: how the hell would anyone NOT consider this an act of sedition? of treason? how is the Heritage Foundation not considered a terrorist group? they want to hurt us all. please take this seriously. DON'T STOP TALKING ABOUT PROJECT 2025

[critical-skeptic]

When Will Enough Be Enough?

It would be so damn easy to stop this madness. We have the mechanisms—Congressional and military oaths, the UCMJ, constitutional authority—all of it designed for precisely this kind of moment: when a clear and present danger to the Republic emerges. And yet, what do we get? Nothing. Spineless platitudes, endless hearings that amount to nothing, and a collective shrug from those in power who have sworn an oath to protect this country. They have the ability—no, the duty—to act, but instead, they tiptoe around the edges, pretending the fire consuming our democracy is just another bad season of political theater.

The military, the politicians, the courts—they all cling to this farce of procedural propriety as if following the rules matters when the rulebook itself is being set ablaze. These are the same people who proudly invoke the Founding Fathers while utterly ignoring the revolutionary spirit of those men who risked their lives to create a system that wouldn’t be beholden to tyrants. They act like the mere suggestion of extreme measures is taboo, as if waiting for a magic moment of unanimous consent will suddenly fix everything. Newsflash: that moment isn’t coming. We’re already past it. The water is boiling, and instead of leaping out, we’re sitting here like morons, seasoning ourselves with denial and cowardice.

Let’s be clear: this isn’t just about one man or one movement. It’s about the absolute abdication of responsibility by everyone—the lawmakers who sit in chambers and bicker about decorum while the Constitution they claim to revere gets shredded; the judges who hide behind technicalities instead of delivering justice; the military brass who have forgotten that their oath isn’t just to follow orders but to defend the nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. They know the stakes. They’ve seen the lines crossed, the norms obliterated. And still, they wait. For what? Permission? Consensus? A fucking parade?

Meanwhile, the citizenry is fed this endless, suffocating narrative that we must “avoid conflict” at all costs, as if conflict isn’t already here. It’s here in the erosion of our institutions, in the normalization of corruption, in the relentless assault on truth itself. This country was built on conflict when it was necessary to preserve freedom. Now, we cower in the face of it, deluding ourselves into thinking that restraint is virtue while the very fabric of our democracy frays to the point of no return.

At what point do we stop pretending this is business as usual? How much more blatant does it have to get? Do we need it in neon lights? Do we need a literal dictator standing on the Capitol steps declaring martial law before we acknowledge what’s happening? The fact that so many in positions of authority, with the power and the mandate to act, are choosing inaction isn’t just cowardice—it’s complicity. They are complicit in this decay, complicit in the destruction of the ideals they swore to defend. Their inaction is a betrayal—not just of their oaths, but of the people they serve and the generations yet to come.

There comes a point where the fear of doing something becomes far more dangerous than the act itself. We’re long past that point. Waiting only ensures the fall. So, to those with the power to act but who choose to sit on their hands instead: understand this. History will not remember your neutrality as wisdom. It will remember it as cowardice. And you will deserve every ounce of condemnation that comes with it.

[raywest]

Bring back public hanging for all Politicians who violate their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. America is under attack from illegals crossing the border. Crime stats are at an all time high. Members of Congress are all becoming millionaires, while citizens struggle to pay bills and put food on their tables.

[deadpresidents]

Has any president ever not been given the oath of office by the chief justice of the supreme court

Yes. The Constitution does not specify who must administer the oath of office to the President and government officials who are required to swear (or affirm) an oath can essentially be sworn in by any federal or state judge or even a notary public.

The oath of office has been administered eight times by someone other than the Chief Justice of the United States -- usually when a Vice President has assumed office upon a President's death and it was necessary to quickly locate somebody who could administer the oath. George Washington was also sworn in by someone other than the Chief Justice at both of his inaugurations. In fact, not only was there no Chief Justice at the time of Washington's first inauguration but there was literally no federal judiciary (and, obviously, no federal judges). The Judiciary Act establishing the Supreme Court wasn't enacted until September 1789 -- almost five months into President Washington's first term -- and that's when the first members of the Supreme Court were nominated and confirmed.

Of course, the Chief Justice of the United States has been the person swearing in the President the vast majority of the time. John Marshall, the longest-serving Chief Justice in American history (1801-1835), administered the oath of office more times than anyone else -- nine times to five different Presidents. However, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney (served from 1836-1864) administered the oath to more individual Presidents than anyone else -- seven times to seven different Presidents. The nation's first two Chief Justices -- John Jay (1789-1795) and John Rutledge (August-December 1795) -- are the only two Chiefs who never administered the oath to a President.

Here is the list of Presidential Inaugurations not conducted by the Chief Justice of the United States along with the person who administered the oath of office: •GEORGE WASHINGTON's 1st Inauguration (April 30, 1789): Robert Livingston, Chancellor of New York (The Chancellor of New York was the presiding judge of the New York Court of Chancery, the highest court in New York State from 1701-1847) •GEORGE WASHINGTON's 2nd Inauguration (March 4, 1793): William Cushing, Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court •JOHN TYLER's Inauguration (April 4, 1841): William Cranch, Chief Judge of the U.S. Circuit Court of the District of Columbia (Tyler assumed office upon the death of President William Henry Harrison. Interestingly, Cranch was the nephew of John and Abigail Adams.) •MILLARD FILLMORE's Inauguration (July 9, 1850): William Cranch, Chief Judge of the U.S. Circuit Court of the District of Columbia (Fillmore assumed office upon the death of President Taylor.) •CHESTER A. ARTHUR's Inauguration (September 20, 1881): John R. Brady, Justice of the New York State Supreme Court (Arthur assumed office upon the death of President Garfield. Brady was the first judge that could be tracked down to administer the oath at Arthur's home in New York City after notification of Garfield's death arrived shortly after midnight on Sept. 20, 1881. After returning to Washington, D.C. on September 22, 1881, Arthur was administered the oath of office again in a formal ceremony by Chief Justice Morrison Waite.) •THEODORE ROOSEVELT's 1st Inauguration (September 14, 1901): John R. Hazel, Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York (Roosevelt assumed office upon the death of President McKinley.) •CALVIN COOLIDGE's 1st Inauguration (August 3, 1923): John Calvin Coolidge Sr., Justice of the Peace and Notary Public in Plymouth, Vermont (Coolidge assumed office upon the death of President Harding. Coolidge was staying at his father's home in Vermont when he was notified shortly after midnight on August 3, 1923 that President Harding had died a few hours earlier in San Francisco. Since Coolidge's father was a Notary Public, he administered the oath of office to his son in the sitting room of the family home. After being sworn in by his father, President Coolidge promptly went back to sleep.) •LYNDON B. JOHNSON's 1st Inauguration (November 22, 1963): Sarah T. Hughes, Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Johnson assumed office upon the death of President Kennedy. Johnson was in Dallas with Kennedy when the President was assassinated, and he was sworn in as President aboard Air Force One on the airport tarmac of Love Field before leaving Texas to return to Washington with Kennedy's body.)

[royalty-nobility]

Isabel II Swearing The Constitution

Artist: by José Castelaro y Perea (Spanish Painter, 1800-1873)

Title: Isabel II Jurando la Constitución

Date: circa 1844

Medium: Oil on Canvas

Collection: Museo de Historia de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

DESCRIPTION

In the Senate chamber, under a large red canopy, Queen Isabel II takes the oath to uphold the 1837 Constitution upon coming of age in 1843. A large audience attends the event from the stands and personalities in the lower part, some of them identifiable, such as the character speaking to the cardinal on the left, who appears to be General Narváez.

[hale-nathan]

Trump Weird News - Violating Oath!

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Drew Sheneman, The Star-Ledger

* * * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

AUG 20, 2023

Various constitutional lawyers have been weighing in lately on whether former president Donald Trump and others who participated in the effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election are disqualified from holding office under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The third section of that amendment, ratified in 1868, reads: 

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

On August 14 an article forthcoming from the University of Pennsylvania Law Review by William Baude of the University of Chicago Law School and Michael S. Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas School of Law became available as a preprint. It argued that the third section of the Fourteenth Amendment is still in effect (countering arguments that it applied only to the Civil War era secessionists), that it is self-executing (meaning the disqualification of certain people is automatic, much as age limits or residency requirements are), and that Trump and others who participated in trying to steal the 2020 presidential election are disqualified from holding office.

This paper was a big deal because while liberal thinkers have been making this argument for a while now, Baude and Paulsen are associated with the legal doctrine of originalism, an approach to the law that insists the Constitution should be understood as those who wrote its different parts understood them. That theory gained traction on the right in the 1980s as a way to push back against what its adherents called “judicial activism,” by which they meant the Supreme Court’s use of the law, especially the Fourteenth Amendment, to expand the rights of minorities and women. One of the key institutions engaged in this pushback was the Federalist Society, and both Baude and Paulson are associated with it. 

Now the two have made a 126-page originalist case that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits Trump from running for president. Their interpretation is undoubtedly correct. But that interpretation has even larger implications than they claim.

Moderate Republicans—not “Radical Republicans,” by the way, which was a slur pinned on the Civil War era party by southern-sympathizing Democrats—wrote the text of the Fourteenth Amendment at a specific time for a specific reason that speaks directly to our own era. 

When John Wilkes Booth assassinated President Abraham Lincoln in April 1865, Congress was not in session. It had adjourned on the morning of Lincoln’s second inauguration in early March, after beavering away all night to finish up the session’s business, and congressmen had begun their long journeys home where they would stay until the new session began in December. 

Lincoln’s death handed control of the country for more than seven months to his vice president, Andrew Johnson, a former Democrat who wanted to restore the nation to what it had been before the war, minus the institution of slavery that he believed concentrated wealth and power among a small elite. Johnson refused to call Congress back into session while he worked alone to restore the prewar system, dominated by Democrats, as quickly as he could. 

In May, Johnson announced that all former Confederates except for high-ranking political or military officers or anyone worth more than $20,000 (about $400,000 today) would be given amnesty as soon as they took an oath of loyalty to the United States. He pardoned all but about 1,500 of that elite excluded group by December 1865.

Johnson required that southern states change their state constitutions by ratifying the Thirteenth Amendment prohibiting enslavement except as punishment for a crime, nullifying the ordinances of secession, and repudiating the Confederate war debts. Delegates did so, grudgingly and with some wiggling, and then went on to pass the Black Codes, laws designed to keep Black Americans subservient to their white neighbors. 

Under those new state constitutions and racist legal codes, southern states elected new senators and representatives to Congress. Voters put back into national office the very same men who had driven the rebellion, including its vice president, Alexander Stephens, whom the Georgia legislature reelected to the U.S. Senate. When Congress reconvened in December 1865, Johnson cheerily told them he had reconstructed the country without their help.

It looked as if the country was right back to where it had been in 1860, with legal slavery ended but a racial system that looked much like it already reestablished in the South. And since the 1870 census would count Black Americans as whole people for the first time, southern congressmen would have more power than before. 

But when the southern state delegations elected under Johnson’s plan arrived in Washington, D.C., to be seated, Republicans turned them away. They rejected the idea that after four years, 600,000 casualties, and more than $5 billion, the country should be ruled by men like Stephens, who insisted that American democracy meant that power resided not in the federal government but in the states, where a small, wealthy minority could insulate itself from the majority rule that controlled Congress. 

In state government a minority could control who could vote and the information to which those voters had access, removing concerns that voters would challenge their wealth or power. White southerners embraced the idea of “popular sovereignty” and “states’ rights,” arguing that any attempt of Congress to enforce majority rule was an attack on democracy.

But President LIncoln and the Republicans reestablished the idea of majority rule, using the federal government to enforce the principle of human equality outlined by the Declaration of Independence. 

And that’s where the Fourteenth Amendment came in. When Johnson tried to restore the former Confederates to power after the Civil War, Americans wrote into the Constitution that anyone born or naturalized in the U.S. was a citizen, and then they established that states must treat all citizens equally before the law, thus taking away the legal basis for the Black Codes and giving the federal government power to enforce equality in the states. They also made sure that anyone who rebels against the federal government can’t make or enforce the nation’s laws. 

Republicans in the 1860s would certainly have believed the Fourteenth Amendment covered Trump’s attempt to overturn the results of a presidential election. More, though, that amendment sought to establish, once and for all, the supremacy of the federal government over those who wanted to solidify their power in the states, where they could impose the will of a minority. That concept speaks directly to today’s Republicans.

In The Atlantic today, two prominent legal scholars from opposite sides of the political spectrum, former federal judge J. Michael Luttig and emeritus professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School Laurence H. Tribe, applauded the Baude-Paulsen article and suggested that the American people should support the “faithful application and enforcement of their Constitution.” 

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[stairnaheireann]

#OTD in 1936 – In the wake of the abdication of Edward VIII, the Dáil passes legislation removing the King from the Irish Constitution and abolishing the position of Governor General.

In 1936, a constitutional crisis in the British Empire arose when King Edward VIII proposed to marry Wallis Simpson, an American socialite who was divorced from her first husband and was pursuing a divorce of her second. Police detectives following Simpson reported back that, while involved with Edward, she was also involved with a married car mechanic and salesman named Guy Trundle. This may…

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

“Oath of Allegiance to Crown to Soon Vanish,” Kingston Whig-Standard. February 28, 1933. Page 1 & 12. ---- It Will Become Dead Letter in Anglo-Irish Free State Treaty - Senate Blocked de Valera Move But That Body Now Rendered Powerless ---- (By the Canadian Press) DUBLIN, Irish Free State, Feb, 28. - Sixty days from tomorrow the oath of allegiance to the British Crown will vanish from the constitution of the Irish Free State and become a dead letter in the Anglo-Irish treaty. 

President Eamonn de Valera will effect its disappearance by a motion in the Dail Eireann invoking Article 38A of the constitution, rendering the Senate powerless to obstruct passage of his Oath Removal Bill any longer. The constitution provides that bills which the Senate refuses to pass in such a manner as to satisfy the Lower House will, at the expiration of fifteen months, become law despite the Senate. In the event the Dail is dissolved in the meantime, the waiting period is shortened to sixty days. 

The oath question has dominated every election campaign since the Free State was founded and has caused endless acrimony and bitterness between large sections of the Irish people. 

Section That Offends The section of the Treaty to which so many Irishmen have taken offence says:

"The oath to be taken by members of the Parliament of the Irish Free State shall be in the following form: I... do solemnly swear true faith and allegiance to the constitution of the Irish Free State as by law established and that I will be faithful to H. M. George V, his heirs and success by law, in virtue of the common citizenship of Ireland with Great Britain and her adherence to and membership of the group of nations forming the British Commonwealth of Nations." 

It was on this section that Mr. de Valera and his followers in 1921 founded their objection to the treaty and refused to recognize it. William T. Cosgrove and his party, however, found no cause for complaint in the section and insured that the oath clause in the constitution which was framed later should be a strong one. 

Made Mandatory Article 17 of the constitution made the oath mandatory. The Republicans refused to take it and remained outside the Dail, leaving Mr. Cosgrave and his adherents with a clear field. 

For a while the Republicians pursued a policy of abstention, contenting themselves with getting elected to the Dail and boycotting the Assembly. At that time all the Republican forces were concentrated in one organization, styled "Sinn Fein" (literally "ourselves alone"), but they grew tired of abstention and loss of political capital in the few years that followed. 

After the 1932 elections when Mr. de Valera found himself heading the Government for the first time he immediately attempted to remove the oath. He was blocked by the Senate, He is now in a position to force removal of the oath but is still faced with a possibility that this move will fail to satisfy left wing extremists including the old Sinn Fein,

[tmarshconnors]

Tennis Court Oath

On 20 June 1789, the members of the French Third Estate took the Tennis Court Oath in the tennis court which had been built in 1686 for the use of the Versailles palace.

During the Estates-General Assembly in 1789, the French people, represented by three estates (clergy, nobility, and commoners), convened to address the country's financial crisis and political issues. However, tensions arose between the representatives of the Third Estate (commoners) and the other two estates, as the Third Estate sought equal representation and voting power, which the clergy and nobility were reluctant to grant.

Frustrated by the lack of progress and the inequality within the Estates-General, the representatives of the Third Estate decided to break away and form their own assembly. They called themselves the National Assembly, declaring that they represented the will of the French people. Their goal was to create a new constitution for France and initiate reforms.

However, when the National Assembly arrived at their meeting place in Versailles on June 20, 1789, they found that the doors to their usual meeting hall had been locked by orders of King Louis XVI. Fearing that the king was trying to dissolve their assembly and suppress their efforts, they relocated to a nearby indoor tennis court known as the "Jeu de Paume" to continue their proceedings.

Inside the tennis court, the representatives of the Third Estate, led by figures like Maximilien Robespierre and Camille Desmoulins, took an oath not to disband until they had successfully created a new constitution for France. This oath is now known as the Tennis Court Oath. The oath solidified the resolve of the National Assembly to stand united against the traditional order and marked a crucial turning point in the French Revolution, inspiring people across the country to support the cause for change.

The Tennis Court Oath was a critical step in the revolutionary process. Eventually, it led to further significant events such as the storming of the Bastille, the abolition of feudal privileges, and the transformation of France into a constitutional monarchy, followed by the eventual abolition altogether.

[ms-boogie-man]

They are the street team of the political establishment… the elites. And when I say political establishment, I mean both parties; Dems and the GOP

Their invasion of our republic has been over a century in the making. The planning, the legislating, the scheming behind our backs, the elections you thought were legit but really only resulted in the appointment of yet another corrupt, treasonous monster

… and now you get a clue-in as to why the words traitor and treason have had nearly no meaning in America for the last 150 years; basically since the Act of 1871 Treason in back rooms and secret societies is all these POS's have been up to

And now, they plan to finish off the theft of our country by replacing us with border jumping, side-winding, bush-whackin', back-bitin', low-down, dirt scrub criminals who — every one of them — was let out of prison before being sent here to be bused, trained, or flown, to places where conservative make their home… most of the big cities already belong to the Democrats

… and make not any mistake here

It matters not how you identify … Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal, anarchist or libertarian, or even just independent, you will be replaced under this very real replacement strategy *it is not a theory yo

… over to you, brave patriots

Angie/Maddie🦇❥✝︎🇺🇸

They are not migrants

They are not dreamers

They are not immigrants

They are not newcomers

They are not asylum seekers

They are not border crossers

They are leeches

They are invaders

They are criminals

They are traffickers

They are illegal aliens

They are law breakers