Constitutional oath Question

[hateriarch]

When one reads the original Constitution as seen in this link

www archives gov exhibits/charters/slurp_file.php?fileref=3

It clearly states in the preamble that we do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

However, when I look to the oath of office taken by a Senator, their oath is to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

"The current oath was enacted in 1884:
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: So help me God."

So I called my Senators office to ask them, where I can get a copy of the Constitution of the United States of America. I tried to explain to them that the Senator is swearing to uphold and defend a Constitution that is not the original Constitution as the original, as previously stated, is a the Constitution for the United States of America.

Don't the differences mean something? Anyone here care to chime in on this question and what the difference means?

 

[longknife]

Go to THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION - We the People for a complete online copy!

To my knowledge, this is the only oath included:

8: 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.”

Here are the various oaths and their histories @ Official US Oaths of Office

Whatever your problem, I don't see it or what is bothering you. If your senator is doing what you thing s/he should, take care of it next time elections roll around.

 

[Avatar4321]

What Constitution are they swearing to if not the United States Constitution?

 

[hateriarch]

I have read it. The problem is they swear to

the Constitution 'OF' the United States of America

The only Constitution I can find is

The Constitution 'FOR' the United states of America

So they must be swearing to uphold a Constitution that doesn't exist? Or there are two of them.

 

[OKTexas]

I have read it. The problem is they swear to

the Constitution 'OF' the United States of America

The only Constitution I can find is

The Constitution 'FOR' the United states of America

So they must be swearing to uphold a Constitution that doesn't exist? Or there are two of them.

You're playing a semantics game, they are the same. Only one valid constitution exist for the US. If you want to get into a discussion if they abide by their oath, that would be a whole different subject.

 

[hateriarch]

Well we know none of them do, maybe 1 or 2, but is this why? You call it semantics but legally of and for have different meanings.