Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Should the Constitution be amended ? Vanity post
11/1/2012 | American Constitutionalist

Posted on 11/01/2012 4:22:41 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist

Oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.
Should the Constitution of the United States of America be amended to only allow those who have taken a oath to defend the Constitution to vote including citizens ?
Those who are already serving or have served in the military should be allowed to vote at the age of 18 since they have already taken a oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: constitutionoath

1 posted on 11/01/2012 4:22:52 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist

What good will this do?

Obama took this oath - hand on a Bible - and that hasn’t stopped him from obeying that oath.


2 posted on 11/01/2012 4:25:06 PM PDT by llevrok (By comparison to Obama, at least Nero could play a fiddle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: llevrok
CORRECTION: DISobeying that oath.
3 posted on 11/01/2012 4:26:02 PM PDT by llevrok (By comparison to Obama, at least Nero could play a fiddle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist

And you think this is going to accomplish what exactly?


4 posted on 11/01/2012 4:26:58 PM PDT by Melas (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist

I’d rather just overturn the 17th amendment and start returning power to the states.


5 posted on 11/01/2012 4:30:58 PM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Melas
I knew I was going to take a lot of flack over asking this question, but, it's just a question, and perhaps worth asking that's all.

How about ? only those who pay taxes and take a oath to protect the Constitution only be allowed to vote ?
Wouldn't you have to be a citizen to take a oath ?
6 posted on 11/01/2012 4:32:02 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist

here is a weird thought.. in the strictest sense of the oath would wanting to further amend the constitution be considered a violation of the oath?


7 posted on 11/01/2012 4:32:24 PM PDT by HenryArmitage (it was not meant that we should voyage far.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist
Folks, it's just a question... wondering where people would feel about this.
Does not those who enter the military have to take a oath to serve in the military ?
Raise the voting age, and exempt those who are already in the military or who are vets... allow only them to vote at a early age 18, 19, 20.
8 posted on 11/01/2012 4:35:59 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: llevrok

Those who are not or will not be loyal to the Constitution won’t take that oath.... therefore, they can’t vote.


9 posted on 11/01/2012 4:37:05 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist
If you really did mean to do harm to the Constitution, wouldn't you sign or say the oath and then do just what you intended to do?

Loyalty oaths caused a lot of agitation from civil liberties groups but someone really devoted to overthrowing the established order at all costs might just take the oath to worm their way into a position where they could do some real damage.

But two qualifications: 1) if you were a dedicated Communist or fascist or anarchist or whatever you'd look like a hypocrite to your friends if you took the oath, so you would be much less likely to vote or serve in the government, and 2) some oaths required you not just to promise to honor the Constitution, but to promise that you'd never been a member of the Communist party or other subversive organization -- if you lied presumably you could be taken to court for it.

10 posted on 11/01/2012 4:38:25 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist
How would it affect those practicing Taqiyya? Or Communists? Seems to me this suffers from the same criticism we subject the left-tards to for advocating more gun laws: it would simply be an additional burden on those who already intend to defend it, and have no additional deterrent effect against those who don't.

We don't need more teachers; we need better teachers, and that also means fewer teachers.

We don't need more laws, we need better laws, and that also means fewer laws.

11 posted on 11/01/2012 4:40:50 PM PDT by FredZarguna (Every President from Arkansas both of whose inaugurations were held in prime years has a bitch wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: llevrok
The point I am trying to make is that those who have true loyalties to the Constitution of the United States of America and our country should only be allowed to vote.
We don't need those who are not loyal to our country or the Constitution or enemies of our country to be allowed to vote period.
12 posted on 11/01/2012 4:43:48 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist

Quakers do not take oaths, citing James 5:12 “. . . do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your ‘yes’ be yes, and your ‘no,’ no, or you will be condemned.”


13 posted on 11/01/2012 4:47:12 PM PDT by ThomasThomas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist
Those who are not or will not be loyal to the Constitution won’t take that oath.... therefore, they can’t vote.

That goes for those who are up-front about what they believe.

Someone truly subversive would hide his or her true convictions to be able to subvert the government from with in.

The other problem is that they wouldn't be swearing allegiance to the Constitution as you understand it, but to the Constitution as they understand it, and when people have their mind set on something they don't admit that the Constitution stands in their way.

Finally, the way the country is now, I don't see something like this going through -- or if it did, it would be repealed or overturned by the courts a few years later.

14 posted on 11/01/2012 4:52:25 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: HenryArmitage
That's the fork in the road question.

Should it have been left alone right after they ratified the Constitution May 1790 ?


15 posted on 11/01/2012 4:53:59 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: x
" to worm their way into a position where they could do some real damage. "

They are already doing that now.
16 posted on 11/01/2012 4:57:05 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ThomasThomas
That bible verse means those who would swear on their father's or mother's grave in a test of their honesty.

What James is talking about is being honest as like the old saying goes ( not true today anymore ) a man's word is as good as Gold.
This bible verse is not talking about swearing allegiance to some country or group.
17 posted on 11/01/2012 5:02:53 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist

What about my 90 year old mother in law?

I understand where you are going, but there are too many exceptions to be made.


18 posted on 11/01/2012 5:03:02 PM PDT by Vermont Lt (The dude abides.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HenryArmitage

No, because the amendment process is a part of the Constitution.


19 posted on 11/01/2012 5:06:54 PM PDT by ExGeeEye (Wait a minute! Romney doesn't suck? I'm trying to keep up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
I’d rather just overturn the 17th amendment and start returning power to the states.

Don't forget the 16th Amendment.

20 posted on 11/01/2012 5:07:33 PM PDT by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist
Folks ? all I am trying to say ? is there ? or are there ? any solutions to keep those who are not loyal to the United States and the Constitution from voting in our election process where they have no skin in this game ?
Take for example ? the UN on sovereign US soil monitoring our election process and it's a given that they are up to no good at all.
I surely do not want anyone who does not have true loyalties to our country or our Constitution voting or involved in our election process.
21 posted on 11/01/2012 5:09:41 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vermont Lt
Your right, it's complicated.... and we can blame the liberals, the MSM, and those who have no backbone for this mess.
It's the fork in the road question.


22 posted on 11/01/2012 5:11:23 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: HenryArmitage
In the strictest sense the amendment process is a part of the Constitution.
Isn't repealing some of the must grievous parts of some of those amendments changing the Constitution ?
For example ? the 16th amendment ?
However ? our forefathers with much wisdom made it very difficult to amended the Constitution against any willi nilli spur of the moment changes.
23 posted on 11/01/2012 5:19:51 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Repeal 16-17

True enough. Both enslaved the states and the people to the federal government.


24 posted on 11/01/2012 5:23:19 PM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Melas

A small step in the right direction ?


25 posted on 11/01/2012 5:26:50 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Melas
Have you ever noticed when the talk of raising the voter age up we always get those who say:

" well what about the 18 year olds serving in the military ?"

They go on and say if they are old enough to serve in the military and die ?
Then they are old enough to vote.

When liberals oppose raising the voter age and say that if they are old enough to serve in the military and die then they are old enough to vote ?

It's a excuse.

The problem is ?

They use that as a excuse.... you and I know very well that, not all, but most won't bother to enlist in the military and hate the military.

Another example..
They yell and cry that the rich need to pay more taxes ?

Fine then, those who DO pay taxes should only be allowed to vote.
If anyone pays taxes, then they should get to vote.. if you don't pay taxes... to bad.
26 posted on 11/01/2012 5:39:21 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist

They would disagree with you on that point.

Article VI, paragraph 3, and states that:

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.

Even the president isn’t required to take an “oath of office”. They choose to affirm instead.

Article II
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.’’

There is no purpose in taken an oath that has no consequence if you break it. Congress and the President have consequences if they break their oath. If you gave it a real consequence would you be comfortable with the current White House or Department of Justice to deciding who to prosecute?

This is the same group the took the phrase “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ....” to make laws limiting law limiting the free exercise of religion by focusing on the establishment clause.


27 posted on 11/01/2012 5:51:31 PM PDT by ThomasThomas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ThomasThomas
So ? what are the solutions of keeping those who have no business voting in our elections and involved in our election process who have no loyalty to our nation or Constitution ?
Enforce voter laws ? and how is that working out ?


28 posted on 11/01/2012 6:00:37 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ThomasThomas
Even the president isn’t required to take an “oath of office”. They choose to affirm instead.

Franklin Pierce is the only President to affirm rather than swear an oath.

29 posted on 11/01/2012 6:03:59 PM PDT by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist

As many observe, an oath just ain’t what it used to be, especially when talking about democrats and muslims.

I respectfully suggest that a much more useful amendment would require one or both of the following measures:
1. You must be a taxpayer to vote. It is an intractable conflict of interest to be a person receiving government largesse and voting for people who can redistribute wealth. This would not apply to physically disabled persons or recipients of social security retirement benefits.

2. You must pass a civic competency examination. Next to government dependency, ignorance is the next great enemy of responsible voting. An astonishing number of people have no concept of how the government operates, where government revenue comes from or what are the founding principles of the country. Absent this basic information, it is impossible to make an informed decision about voting, as reflected by the election of such completely unqualified people as Obama and Clinton. Besides lack of experience, Obama seems to have been elected on nothing more than celebrity. Clinton had a limited, crappy record, a saxophone and his ability to “feel our pain” to recommend him. Nothing but a stupid, ignorant populous can explain their electoral success.


30 posted on 11/01/2012 7:14:31 PM PDT by JewishRighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist

Hell no! It should be obeyed and everything would be fine.


31 posted on 11/01/2012 7:18:12 PM PDT by lwoodham (I am Andrew Breitbart. Don't doubt me on this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JewishRighter

Well said.

The argument I am trying to make is ?

What are some other solutions do we have to make sure those who have a true loyalty to the United States and our Constitution can vote or be involved in our election process ?
We don't want outsiders voting or involved in our voting process.
We don't want anyone who does not have love of our country and loyalty to the US Constitution voting or involved in our election process.
32 posted on 11/01/2012 7:23:14 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: lwoodham
Your right.... it should be obeyed.... but, it isn't at this point in time.

What solutions are there ? that this country can take to avoid and prevent those who have no love for our country and loyalty to the US Constitution from voting and involved in our elections ?
33 posted on 11/01/2012 7:26:18 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist

Loyalty is an organic thing. It either grows as a natural product of our socialization or it doesn’t. When children were raised in the Judeo-Christian American culture that used to prevail, their family, religious and community values were all in harmony with American ideals of fairness, equality, hard work, self-reliance, duty, self-sacrifice, virtue, faith, charity and patriotism. No oath can compensate for these values, if they are not inculcated and, nor can it overcome values hostile to American ideals.

Without intending to, I think I may have just described what makes the American left so strangely similar to Islamists. Although they are culturally worlds apart, they share disdain for American values.


34 posted on 11/01/2012 7:50:29 PM PDT by JewishRighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist
What solutions are there ? that this country can take to avoid and prevent those who have no love for our country and loyalty to the US Constitution from voting and involved in our elections ?

I think the short answer is "We The People" must continue to elect constitutional conservatives until there are enough to overcome the liberal left and the old dog Republican elites. It will take years, but it can happen. I know of no other way except civil war and no one wants that, yet it may come to that on our present course.

35 posted on 11/01/2012 8:13:02 PM PDT by lwoodham (I am Andrew Breitbart. Don't doubt me on this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist

Oaths are words. Anyone can repeat words back to you, and as of yet, the technology to determine if they really, really mean it, is not available. Furthermore, I’ve never subscribed to the Heinlein earn your citizenship model. Call me old fashioned and a romantic, but Heinlein’s idea pales next to the tried and true declaration of citizenship as a birthright.


36 posted on 11/01/2012 8:25:11 PM PDT by Melas (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist
Those who are not or will not be loyal to the Constitution won’t take that oath.... therefore, they can’t vote.

Now I see your problem. You're just naive. They'd take the oath and take it about seriously as Kim Kardashian took that "Til death do us part" part of her vows.

37 posted on 11/01/2012 8:28:05 PM PDT by Melas (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: HenryArmitage
here is a weird thought.. in the strictest sense of the oath would wanting to further amend the constitution be considered a violation of the oath?

You should have thought it through more. The constitution itself lays out the process by which it can be added to or subtracted from. Seeking an amendment is absolutely constitutional.

38 posted on 11/01/2012 8:30:30 PM PDT by Melas (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist
When liberals oppose raising the voter age and say that if they are old enough to serve in the military and die then they are old enough to vote ?

Who lied to you, and told you that was a liberal position? I'm 100% against rights without responsibilities and consequently responsibilities without rights. At 18, you're an adult in all fifty states. Your wages are taxed, you fully accountable for you actions in a court of law, you register for the draft, etc etc. At 18, you have stake in the game, so you absolutely deserve a vote. If anything, the drinking age in this country flies in the face of reason, not the voting age.

39 posted on 11/01/2012 8:35:45 PM PDT by Melas (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist

Until you develop the app that can measure love, there is nothing that can be done to accomplish what you want.


40 posted on 11/01/2012 8:38:53 PM PDT by Melas (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Melas
Then what ? what are the solutions ?

41 posted on 11/01/2012 8:44:03 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist

When it comes to taking human nature out of human business, there are no solutions. Human nature, both the good and the bad will permeate politics until the sun goes cold. There is no utopia, there is no holy grail, there is no perfect government. In politics especially, perfection genuinely is the enemy of good.


42 posted on 11/01/2012 8:59:43 PM PDT by Melas (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist
Heinlein's idea -- I agree

it should be an oath and service for some time (a year) to the nation. The service doesn't have to be in the military -- doctors can help in small villages/towns, young folks can help the elderly

Why, even a disabled teen, say a severely disabled teen is still a valuable person, who can help with their intelligence (I strongly believe as a Christian that everyone is a gift from God -- and i've seen downs syndrome children who truly are gifts)

and, if people don't want to do this, they should be allowed to opt out -- and they don't get a vote...

43 posted on 11/02/2012 3:22:19 AM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson