Congressional GOP's mass violations of their Oath of Office

[Richard-H]

There seems to be a distinct contradiction between the Congressional Oath of office and the fact that Congress People have taken the Norquist No-Tax Pledge:

First the Constitution states:

Article VI:
3: The Senators and Representatives ... shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution...

Second, the congressional Oath of Office States:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) ... 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...

Third, the Constitution States:
Article XIV:
4: The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law... shall not be questioned.

It seems obvious that by taking the "Norquist No-Tax Pledge", these congresspeople were lying when they swore "that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion"

Furthermore by refusing to increase the debt ceiling they are violating Article XIV sec. 4 and therfore violating their oath of office:
"I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office"

Don't believe me? (or just don't like what your reading), have a look here:


Judge H. Lee Sarokin: Does the Norquist No-Tax Pledge Violate the Congressional Oath of Office?

While the Constitution does not directly prescribe a method for removing Congress People, other than by the house itself, it does not exclude other methods either.

It would fall under the jurisdiction of the federal courts to determine removal from office for these violations:

Article III:
Section 2
1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States...

Time to get this wingnuts out of office!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Don't believe me? (or just don't like what your reading), have a look here:

No, you’re quite correct.

Unfortunately some will argue the ‘Norquist No-Tax Pledge’ is mere political bombast and rhetoric – that it’s not a ‘real pledge’ and no conflict exists.

 

[Richard-H]

Don't believe me? (or just don't like what your reading), have a look here:

No, you’re quite correct.

Unfortunately some will argue the ‘Norquist No-Tax Pledge’ is mere political bombast and rhetoric – that it’s not a ‘real pledge’ and no conflict exists.

It seems obvious that the GOP congress people are very seriuosly honoring that pledge. - while grossly violating their oath of office.

Their actions speak loudly!

 

[JimH52]

Party before Country...Didn't you get the Memo?

 

[peach174]

There seems to be a distinct contradiction between the Congressional Oath of office and the fact that Congress People have taken the Norquist No-Tax Pledge:

First the Constitution states:

Article VI:
3: The Senators and Representatives ... shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution...

Second, the congressional Oath of Office States:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) ... 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...

Third, the Constitution States:
Article XIV:
4: The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law... shall not be questioned.

It seems obvious that by taking the "Norquist No-Tax Pledge", these congresspeople were lying when they swore "that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion"

Furthermore by refusing to increase the debt ceiling they are violating Article XIV sec. 4 and therfore violating their oath of office:
"I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office"

Don't believe me? (or just don't like what your reading), have a look here:


Judge H. Lee Sarokin: Does the Norquist No-Tax Pledge Violate the Congressional Oath of Office?

While the Constitution does not directly prescribe a method for removing Congress People, other than by the house itself, it does not exclude other methods either.

It would fall under the jurisdiction of the federal courts to determine removal from office for these violations:

Article III:
Section 2
1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States...

Time to get this wingnuts out of office!

Typical socialists, don't like the majority's vote, so get them out of office by taking them to court.
They will pay the debts owed, thus recognizing the validity of the debt. And that does not violate the Constitution.

 

[Dot Com]

What is it w/ Republicans and pledges? What are they in the boy scouts? This Norquist character is a real piece of............work too.

 

[saveliberty]

Congressperson are under no requirement to continually grow government, increase revenues and spend beyond their means. You're truly beyond belief.

 

[Oddball]

I don't see anywhere in the Constitution that obligates anyone to raise taxes.

Oh, Huffy-Puffy....That 'splains it.

 

[saveliberty]

What is it w/ Republicans and pledges? What are they in the boy scouts? This Norquist character is a real piece of............work too.

Can't fault the pledge so you attack the author. Weak and worthless DotCom.

 

[Richard-H]

I don't see anywhere in the Constitution that obligates anyone to raise taxes.

Oh, Huffy-Puffy....That 'splains it.

No, your right, there is nothing in the Constitution requiring that taxes be raised, but there is a requirement to pay the existing debt. That's what this discussion is about.

 

[slackjawed]

I don't see anywhere in the Constitution that obligates anyone to raise taxes.

Oh, Huffy-Puffy....That 'splains it.

No, your right, there is nothing in the Constitution requiring that taxes be raised, but there is a requirement to pay the existing debt. That's what this discussion is about.

key words in bold-my doing. Pay existing debt doesn't mean create more.

 

[saveliberty]

I don't see anywhere in the Constitution that obligates anyone to raise taxes.

Oh, Huffy-Puffy....That 'splains it.

No, your right, there is nothing in the Constitution requiring that taxes be raised, but there is a requirement to pay the existing debt. That's what this discussion is about.

Where is this claim again? Please use the 14th amendment which refers exclusively to the Civil War.

 

[Richard-H]

There seems to be a distinct contradiction between the Congressional Oath of office and the fact that Congress People have taken the Norquist No-Tax Pledge:

First the Constitution states:

Article VI:
3: The Senators and Representatives ... shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution...

Second, the congressional Oath of Office States:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) ... 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...

Third, the Constitution States:
Article XIV:
4: The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law... shall not be questioned.

It seems obvious that by taking the "Norquist No-Tax Pledge", these congresspeople were lying when they swore "that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion"

Furthermore by refusing to increase the debt ceiling they are violating Article XIV sec. 4 and therfore violating their oath of office:
"I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office"

Don't believe me? (or just don't like what your reading), have a look here:


Judge H. Lee Sarokin: Does the Norquist No-Tax Pledge Violate the Congressional Oath of Office?

While the Constitution does not directly prescribe a method for removing Congress People, other than by the house itself, it does not exclude other methods either.

It would fall under the jurisdiction of the federal courts to determine removal from office for these violations:

Article III:
Section 2
1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States...

Time to get this wingnuts out of office!

Typical socialists, don't like the majority's vote, so get them out of office by taking them to court.
They will pay the debts owed, thus recognizing the validity of the debt. And that does not violate the Constitution.

So far they have repeatly refused to pay the debts, and threaten to continue that way. That IS a violatio of the Constitution.

BTW, to paraphrase Judge Bork (one of Reagan's judicial nominees):

"The Judicial system exists...to prevent Democracy from becoming a dictatorship of the majority..."

Can ya dig that concept?

 

[saveliberty]

When your done smoking weed, let's try to teach you history Richard.

 

[Richard-H]

I don't see anywhere in the Constitution that obligates anyone to raise taxes.

Oh, Huffy-Puffy....That 'splains it.

No, your right, there is nothing in the Constitution requiring that taxes be raised, but there is a requirement to pay the existing debt. That's what this discussion is about.

Where is this claim again? Please use the 14th amendment which refers exclusively to the Civil War.

Where did you get the idea that the 14th Amendment refers exclusively to the civil war?

Everyone else seems to think that it's the current law of the land:

Article XIV
1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

2: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,15 and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. affects 2

3: 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.

4: The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

 

[Richard-H]

When your done smoking weed, let's try to teach you history Richard.

Funny, I don't see the word 'Civil War' in the amendment at all.

Are you hallucenating or what?

 

[saveliberty]

When your done smoking weed, let's try to teach you history Richard.

Funny, I don't see the word 'Civil War' in the amendment at all.

Are you hallucenating or what?

No, I am just aware of what debts they are referring to in the amendment. Try reading up on when this amendment passed and why. You could start by reading ALL five parts of that section. Number five gives this power to Congress exclusively, which flies in the face of liberal thought blogs that Obama can do anything.

 

[Richard-H]

I don't see anywhere in the Constitution that obligates anyone to raise taxes.

Oh, Huffy-Puffy....That 'splains it.

No, your right, there is nothing in the Constitution requiring that taxes be raised, but there is a requirement to pay the existing debt. That's what this discussion is about.

key words in bold-my doing. Pay existing debt doesn't mean create more.

Do you understand that raising the debt ceiling is for the purpose of pay off existing debt obligations?

Even if they do not raise the debt ceiling, the government will continue to owe the money and the federal deficit will go up.

 

[saveliberty]

No, your right, there is nothing in the Constitution requiring that taxes be raised, but there is a requirement to pay the existing debt. That's what this discussion is about.

key words in bold-my doing. Pay existing debt doesn't mean create more.

Do you understand that raising the debt ceiling is for the purpose of pay off existing debt obligations?

Even if they do not raise the debt ceiling, the government will continue to owe the money and the federal deficit will go up.

No, it funds all the existing programs and debts. What Republicans are asking for is fewer programs and a more managable debt load.

 

[Richard-H]

When your done smoking weed, let's try to teach you history Richard.

Funny, I don't see the word 'Civil War' in the amendment at all.

Are you hallucenating or what?

No, I am just aware of what debts they are referring to in the amendment. Try reading up on when this amendment passed and why. You could start by reading ALL five parts of that section. Number five gives this power to Congress exclusively, which flies in the face of liberal thought blogs that Obama can do anything.

5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


#5 Does not give Congress the right to ignore the previous 4 sections, it only gives them the power to enforce those sections.


BTW, so your interpertation of all Constitutional amendments is that they only [ertain to the time and circumstances in which they were written. That they become somehow obsolete without being repealed?


Please show me the amendment the repeals the 14th.