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
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-43 next last

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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-43 next last

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