Discussion Locked

Senate violates Constitution...

inkling · 2008-02-14T16:08:49.000Z

I know, "Suprise, surprise" Note, for those of you keeping score, that Obama and Clinton held true to their beliefs and ABSTAINED (way to take a stand!!!), while John McCain voted FOR it: Subject: 68 Senators violated their oaths of office yesterday Do you know the date of the first law ever passed by the United States' Senate? It was May 5, 1789. Do you know the subject of that law? It was the "Oath Act." It's purpose was to provide specific wording for the oath the Constitution requires Senators to swear upon taking office. Strangely, the Constitution actually provides the specific wording of the oath the President is supposed to take, but it does not do so for Congress. Instead, the Constitution simply stipulates the following in Article VI, clause 3: "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." The lack of specific wording meant that Congress had to create the wording. The oath they created as their first order of business, was very simple . . . "I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States." Of course, later politicians have been increasingly fond of complexity, causing the oath to mutate into this . . . "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." The result remains the same. And please notice that members of Congress do not swear an oath to support or defend the nation, the country, or the government. They swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution, specifically. This is very important . . . The Founders viewed government as a servant of the people. They did not make the mistake that so many supposed "patriots" make, of thinking the government is the same thing as the nation, the country, or the people. Our country is made up of many institutions -- families, churches, businesses, associations -- of which the government is only one. All of these institutions taken together, and all the individuals within the country, independent of any institution, are what make up the country. The government is meant to serve the nation, not BE the country. In keeping with the ideas expressed in our Declaration of Independence, our government was instituted with highly limited powers. The instrument that imposed these limitations was the Constitution, and it is this document that members of Congress swear an oath to defend. One of the consequences of Constitutional limits on government power is that bad people are often permitted to get away with doing bad things. The government is categorically denied many of the powers that might aid it in the apprehension of criminals. For example . . . There are hundreds of murderers running lose in America, and thousands of murders committed each year, that the government might be able to stop. The Constitution specifically prohibits government from doing all that it could do to save lives by catching murderers. Were the Founders crazy? Were they stupid? No, they were not. The Founders knew that any government that has all the power it might need to optimize its apprehension of murderers, would also have all the power it needed to become a mass murderer. The Founders knew, even in their time, that governments were, historically, the greatest killers of all. The history of the last century has only added to the evidence. Tens of millions of people were murdered in the 20th Century by governments that had too much power. Our Constitution protects us from this; so far. Think about that. But now, because criminals murdered thousands of people on September 11, 2001, many are eager to abandon their Constitutional protections. Have we become a nation of sniveling cowards? If not, please explain how it is that Congress has either bowed to or exploited this fear to become a gang of lawbreakers? Yesterday, 68 Senators violated their oaths of office. They voted to pass S. 2248, a new law designed to replace the so-called "Protect America Act." This bill violates the Bill of Rights . . . * It permits the President to spy on Americans without a warrant. * It grants retroactive immunity to tele-communications companies that collaborated with the Bush administration in previous warrantless spying, thereby creating an incentive for other companies to engage in similar crimes in the future (only Qwest Communications insisted on warrants). Will this new, un-constitutional power, prevent future terrorist attacks? Of course not, nothing can do that, just as there is no law or power that could completely stop murders by domestic criminals. Does this new law create a tyranny? That would be an exaggeration. But what will happen when the next terrorist attack comes? The sniveling cowards among us, and the lawbreakers in Congress, will then seek still more powers. At one point will our children call this tyranny? Will there be any turning back? Yesterday, 19 Democrats, 48 Republicans, and 1 independent voted to violate the Constitution and their oaths of office. Only 28 Democrats, 1 independent, and ZERO Republicans remained true to their oaths. The Republicans were universally bad. But please notice that the law could not have passed without the vote of the Democrats! Let this be clear -- neither political party is going to protect our Constitution, unless WE compel them to do it. All hope is NOT lost. S. 2248 cannot become law unless the House agrees to its provisions. Fortunately, the House version of this bill, while not perfect, is signficantly better. Our best hope, and we must take it, is to tell the House to stick by their version of the bill. A list of how the Senate voted is pasted below my signature. Use the personal comments section of your message to Congress to thank your Senator if he or she voted against S. 2248, or to criticize your Senator if he or she voted for it. Ask your House member to reject the provisions of S. 2248. How the Senate voted . . . Sen. Daniel Akaka [D, HI] Nay Sen. Lamar Alexander [R, TN] Aye Sen. Wayne Allard [R, CO] Aye Sen. John Barrasso [R, WY] Aye Sen. Max Baucus [D, MT] Aye Sen. B. Evan Bayh [D, IN] Aye Sen. Robert Bennett [R, UT] Aye Sen. Joseph Biden [D, DE] Nay Sen. Jeff Bingaman [D, NM] Nay Sen. Christopher Bond [R, MO] Aye Sen. Barbara Boxer [D, CA] Nay Sen. Sherrod Brown [D, OH] Nay Sen. Samuel Brownback [R, KS] Aye Sen. Jim Bunning [R, KY] Aye Sen. Richard Burr [R, NC] Aye Sen. Robert Byrd [D, WV] Nay Sen. Maria Cantwell [D, WA] Nay Sen. Benjamin Cardin [D, MD] Nay Sen. Thomas Carper [D, DE] Aye Sen. Robert Casey [D, PA] Aye Sen. C. Saxby Chambliss [R, GA] Aye Sen. Hillary Clinton [D, NY] Abstain Sen. Thomas Coburn [R, OK] Aye Sen. Thad Cochran [R, MS] Aye Sen. Norm Coleman [R, MN] Aye Sen. Susan Collins [R, ME] Aye Sen. Kent Conrad [D, ND] Aye Sen. Bob Corker [R, TN] Aye Sen. John Cornyn [R, TX] Aye Sen. Larry Craig [R, ID] Aye Sen. Michael Crapo [R, ID] Aye Sen. Jim DeMint [R, SC] Aye Sen. Christopher Dodd [D, CT] Nay Sen. Elizabeth Dole [R, NC] Aye Sen. Pete Domenici [R, NM] Aye Sen. Byron Dorgan [D, ND] Nay Sen. Richard Durbin [D, IL] Nay Sen. John Ensign [R, NV] Aye Sen. Michael Enzi [R, WY] Aye Sen. Russell Feingold [D, WI] Nay Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D, CA] Nay Sen. Lindsey Graham [R, SC] Abstain Sen. Charles Grassley [R, IA] Aye Sen. Judd Gregg [R, NH] Aye Sen. Charles Hagel [R, NE] Aye Sen. Thomas Harkin [D, IA] Nay Sen. Orrin Hatch [R, UT] Aye Sen. Kay Hutchison [R, TX] Aye Sen. James Inhofe [R, OK] Aye Sen. Daniel Inouye [D, HI] Aye Sen. John Isakson [R, GA] Aye Sen. Tim Johnson [D, SD] Aye Sen. Edward Kennedy [D, MA] Nay Sen. John Kerry [D, MA] Nay Sen. Amy Klobuchar [D, MN] Nay Sen. Herbert Kohl [D, WI] Aye Sen. Jon Kyl [R, AZ] Aye Sen. Mary Landrieu [D, LA] Aye Sen. Frank Lautenberg [D, NJ] Nay Sen. Patrick Leahy [D, VT] Nay Sen. Carl Levin [D, MI] Nay Sen. Joseph Lieberman [I, CT] Aye Sen. Blanche Lincoln [D, AR] Aye Sen. Richard Lugar [R, IN] Aye Sen. Mel Martinez [R, FL] Aye Sen. John McCain [R, AZ] Aye Sen. Claire McCaskill [D, MO] Aye Sen. Mitch McConnell [R, KY] Aye Sen. Robert Menendez [D, NJ] Nay Sen. Barbara Mikulski [D, MD] Aye Sen. Lisa Murkowski [R, AK] Aye Sen. Patty Murray [D, WA] Nay Sen. Ben Nelson [D, NE] Aye Sen. Bill Nelson [D, FL] Aye Sen. Barack Obama [D, IL] Abstain Sen. Mark Pryor [D, AR] Aye Sen. John Reed [D, RI] Nay Sen. Harry Reid [D, NV] Nay Sen. Pat Roberts [R, KS] Aye Sen. John Rockefeller [D, WV] Aye Sen. Ken Salazar [D, CO] Aye Sen. Bernard Sanders [I, VT] Nay Sen. Charles Schumer [D, NY] Nay Sen. Jefferson Sessions [R, AL] Aye Sen. Richard Shelby [R, AL] Aye Sen. Gordon Smith [R, OR] Aye Sen. Olympia Snowe [R, ME] Aye Sen. Arlen Specter [R, PA] Aye Sen. Debbie Ann Stabenow [D, MI] Nay Sen. Ted Stevens [R, AK] Aye Sen. John Sununu [R, NH] Aye Sen. Jon Tester [D, MT] Nay Sen. John Thune [R, SD] Aye Sen. David Vitter [R, LA] Aye Sen. George Voinovich [R, OH] Aye Sen. John Warner [R, VA] Aye Sen. Jim Webb [D, VA] Aye Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse [D, RI] Aye Rep. Roger Wicker [R, MS-1] Aye Sen. Ron Wyden [D, OR] Nay

0 helpful

105 replies

by inkling Feb 14, 2008 last reply Apr 12, 2008

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

This is page 2 of the discussion. Read the opening post

105 replies

by tonythetiger Mar 19, 2008

I have come to believe that the immunity part is unconstitutional, but not for the reason you suggest.

I believe it actually violates the FIRST amendment... Congress may not pass laws which limit the [people's] right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

by dr_zinj Apr 11, 2008

If it walks like a Republican, and quacks like a Republican, it's a Republican; even if it says it's a Democrate.

Perhaps it would have been better if I said, "Republicanesque"?

by michaelstn Apr 11, 2008

that some of the agencies were forbidden by internal RULES (as opposed to LAWS) from communicating with each other.

Plus, in an otherwise intelligent rant, you neglected to explain how this law, if signed into law, would be unconstitutional. You've stated it, now prove it.

by altotus Apr 12, 2008

Is this about the money for civil damages as the criminal intent is simply ignored by law enforcement just like extrajudicial execution?

by altotus Apr 12, 2008

The people that "protect" us are the greatest threat to the constitution county people and liberty that exists or can exist. The fore fathers of this nation understood this. Evidently from this post the people responsible for this duty do not understand this.

This discussion is closed to new replies.

105 replies

Trending Software posts

Network Printer Works for Everyone Except Me

Can I Print Emails Directly from a PST File

Is There any Reverse Video Search Tool

Useful software Tip or Shortcut

Hello everyone