Replies

FROM AN OLD ARTICLE on American Thinker: For the man who will be America's spymaster, it was an odd move for him to stir up trouble. If spies are said to be "spooks," our top spy's action was, well, "spooky." Civil libertarians left and right were quick to point out that the 1787 Constitution did not include a Bill of Rights. Critics were right to be vigilant , especially when our spymaster has been so intimately associated with choosing targets for drone attacks. The Fifth Amendment says "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." That guarantee should certainly apply to Americans here at home. Similarly, the Fourth Amendment's safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures need to be underscored. But there was little notice of the fact that the First Amendment provides for No Establishment of Religion. This was conspicuously not a part of the Constitution that Brennan chose to swear to uphold.

What action of Brennan’s is referred to here? Did he swear to uphold the 1987 Constitution rather than the Constitution in effect now (complete with the amendments)? Do you have a source that tells about this (like maybe the American Thinker article)?

I don’t think a person is allowed to choose to defend a Constitution that is no longer in effect. The Constitution in effect right now has a Bill of Rights and the other amendments, and THAT is what a person has to swear to protect and defend.

I had not heard anything about this. If Brennan wouldn’t swear to protect and defend the US Constitution in effect right now, then he should not be holding ANY office.