Oath of Office

U. S. Constitution | June 21, 1788 | Constitution

[nolongerademocrat]

Remind them of their Oath of Office.

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.

It doesn't say they are taking an oath to uphold Obama's desires. They take an oath to the Constitution. If they violate that oath deliberately - at the very least they are guilty of fraud, at the most, high treason. We should start whatever processes are available against them in order to see that they are punished. And that includes the President who also took an oath to protect the Constitution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=274_VdeckAU

[Road Warrior ‘04]

Congresscritters are not Oathkeepers! I am!

[sodpoodle]

email I just received;) Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdKmc9aBELM

[Diogenesis]

There is NO evidence that any of them take their Oaths seriously
or the Codes of Conduct, or the laws of the land.

[Man50D]

Below is what I tell Congress critters when I contact their office:

Any federal version of health care is unconstitutional since Article 1 Section 8 does not specifically grant Congress the power to regulate health care.

Moreover thirty six states are considering legislation to reassert their 10th Amendment rights by preventing the federal government from the attempt of imposing an unconstitutional act by Congress. Virginia and Idaho have passed such legislation.

At least 13 State Attorneys General are considering lawsuits against the federal government should Congress insist on ramming unconstitutional health care down the throats of the American people.

The Slaughter so called “rule” that does not require the House to vote on a bill violates Article 1 Section 7 as it requires both chambers of Congress to vote on a bill.

Senate Republicans have notified Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) vowing to raise potentially crippling objections to any portion of a proposed health care reconciliation package that they believe violates the procedure’s narrow guidelines should the Senate take up the issue again.

The people are not bound by any unconstitutional act of Congress and therefore will not comply. We will defend the Constitution since members of Congress refuse to uphold their pledge when they took office. There will be massive nationwide resistance. Members of Congress will understand the people are the government, not Congress. You must comply with the will of the people and not the socialist/marxist agenda of Obama, Pelosi and Reid. Refusal to do so will only incur the wrath of the American people beyond your comprehension.

[broken_arrow1]

An oath assumes you believe in God. Democrats can take an oath and shrug it off. They think of themselves as gods dictating terms for people’s lives.

[CincyRichieRich]

Keep and eye out for any petitions or other movements to impeach Obama based on his violation of oath...in such matters, however, we cannot speak in generalities, but pin it down to specific areas that were/are violated, etc. Specifics do the job, generalities just create wishful thinking and ra ra ra stuff.

[nolongerademocrat]

I understand. But they took an oath as well. If they didn’t intend to keep the oath - that’s fraud.

[Dick Bachert]

And before I’m accused of simply flogging the problem, the solution is to RE-ELECT ONLY those who pass Constitutional muster. Before you say “My guy’s doing a SWELL job,” check him out at http://www.gradegov.com/

[Dick Bachert]

No — THAT’S TREASON!!!!!

[nolongerademocrat]

That’s great! Thanks.

[nolongerademocrat]

I’m sorry, I guess I misunderstood your post.

[LZ_Bayonet]

Impeachable?

Maybe not due to their participation in tomorrow's vote in particular. BUT, for President Obama to reject concern for "the process" as he did in the FOX interview is clearly a violation of his oath; the "process" he clearly refers to is the Constitution of the United States.

He took a general oath to uphold it, and then goes on television and rejects, in general, key components of the "process" laid out in the document. Obama should be held responsibile for this. By rejecting the "process" he is stating that he rejects the Constitution.

[Wolfie]

I’m quite certain their only oath is “I’m gonna be a filthy rich son-of-a-bitch when I leave this place”.

[GVnana]

The Declaration of Independence ------------------------------------------------------------ IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.