Should the Constitution be amended ? Vanity post

11/1/2012 | American Constitutionalist

[llevrok]

What good will this do?

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

[llevrok]

CORRECTION: DISobeying that oath.

[Melas]

And you think this is going to accomplish what exactly?

[cripplecreek]

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

[American Constitutionalist]

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 ?

[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?

[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.

[American Constitutionalist]

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

[x]

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.

[FredZarguna]

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.

[American Constitutionalist]

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.

[ThomasThomas]

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.”

[x]

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.

[American Constitutionalist]

That's the fork in the road question.

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

[American Constitutionalist]

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

They are already doing that now.

[American Constitutionalist]

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.

[Vermont Lt]

What about my 90 year old mother in law?

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

[ExGeeEye]

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

[Repeal 16-17]

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

Don't forget the 16th Amendment.