Oath of U.S. public office

B

Bucksnort1

New member
I sometimes wonder how elected federal officials, including the president, justify swearing to uphold and defend the constitution then speak against the 2nd amendment.
 
It's pretty simple.

Most of the people you're talking about just don't believe the 2nd Amendment says what you believe it says.

It's also possible that some don't care about swearing to do something they have no intention of doing.
 
JohnKSa said:
Most of the people you're talking about just don't believe the 2nd Amendment says what you believe it says.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Which shows their hypocrisy, since that same constitution also says it is the highest law of the land, and that the Supreme Court is the final word on what it means. So now, after a lengthy Congressional report, and even lengthier Attorney General's report, and the Supreme Court have all concluded that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right, for any public official to behave as though that's not what the 2nd Amendment says is dereliction of duty. You can't uphold and defend the Constitution if you claim you don't have to follow the parts you don't agree with.
 
Last edited:
It's not just the 2nd Amendment that is disregarded. While this is a gun forum, and that's what we are supposed to focus on, the bigger picture is a growing disregard for the Constitution in general, and how its enumerated "rights" are nothing more than a Bill of Suggestions, to be followed or ignored at the discretion of the ruling political class. Example - In the last 7 years I've contantly heard "no right is absolute" to defend every infringement on Constutional issues, while "law of the land" has only been applied to two issues the Supreme Court ruled on that are not even mentioned or addressed in the Constitution.
 
TimSr,

I hear the term, "absolute right" when people talk about the first amendment. You always hear the example of yelling fire in a crowded theater. I heard this explained that a reasonable person would not do this; therefore, the person who does, will likely pay a heavy price.
 
They believe that since the document was written by a bunch of old white slave owners that the the document needs to change to fit their current agenda. I figured this out when I started to vote, I will ONLY vote for pro-gun politicians. It's the most important issue if you value your life.
 
They become morally corrupt.

I sometimes wonder how elected federal officials, including the president, justify swearing to uphold and defend the constitution then speak against the 2nd amendment
Click to expand...
The answer to me, is very simple as they have become morally corrupt. I also believe that given enough time, all career politicians, can and will become morally corrupt. That is why I believe in term limits. ........ ;)

When I became old enough to vote, I solicited direction on who to vote from, from folks that I looked up to and were knowledgeable. I know longer solicit this information as My measure is simple. ...... :)

I ask; "Where does a person stands on "their" Bible and "our" US Constitution."

Be Safe !!!
 
They and the party are far more important than any oath or public duty, don't you know that?

As Lord Acton said, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

It's not just the 2nd Amendment, these folks will sell out their fellow citizens and the entire country if it means they get to continue to hold power. Look at trade agreements, immigration issues, criminal justice, education, military rules of engagement, and national security issues, just to name a few areas.

The words 'public good' and 'decency' are meaningless to these people.
 
Keeping it simple !!!

This isn't really firearms related, if we start on morals, the Bible, etc.
Click to expand...
Okay, is it gun related to state that we all have the "Natural" God-given right of self protection and supported by the 2A?

Be Safe !!!
 
I hear the term, "absolute right" when people talk about the first amendment. You always hear the example of yelling fire in a crowded theater. I heard this explained that a reasonable person would not do this; therefore, the person who does, will likely pay a heavy price.
Click to expand...

The "absolute right" argument has a double standard.

The limitations on the 1st amendment rights, crowded theater example, does not put limitations on having those capabilities, but upon using them in a way that could damage others. Nobody ever says a person should have to apply for a government permit, and pass a background check to possess his vocal chords, or a pen, or a word processor, or a keyboard. They only pay a heavy price if used irresponsibly in a way that causes harn or damage to innocents, and the legal ramifications kick in after the fact. You do have a right to be prepared to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, in case there is a fire.

The comparative 2nd amendment argument would be that a person cannot fire a weapon in a crowded movie theater. The right to be armed is absolute. The right to utilize your weapon only in a responsible manner is the Constitutional restriction.
 
Lest we forget, Americans don't live under a dictatorship (yea I know) BECAUSE the Second Amendment isn't about hunting your next meal. Further the other amendments and rights survive because of the Second.
 
We have all heard that "all civil rights are subject to reasonable regulation." Our own moderator, Frank Ettin, who is an attorney, has reminded me of that on more than two occasions. My rebuttal is that this is based on common law, not on the language of the Constitution, and common law formed on cases involving any of the other amendments making up the Bill of Rights should not apply to the Second Amendment.

Why?

Because none of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights says clearly "This right shall not be infringed." The 2A does say that the RKBA shall NOT be infringed. It doesn't say "shall not be unreasonably infringed," it says "SHALL NOT BE." That is an absolute statement, and there's simply no way to get around it without surrendering intellectual honesty. Reasonable or not, regulation IS infringement.

Conversely, look at the 4th Amendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

In that amendment, they used the word "unreasonable." That means the government is allowed to conduct "reasonable" searches and seizures, so it then falls to the courts to draw the line between what is reasonable and what is unreasonable.

Look at the 3rd Amendment: "No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." It doesn't say we can't be forced to house soldiers in our homes. It says we can't be forced to do so unless the government enacts a law saying that they CAN do so. Again, not an absolute right.

Nowhere else in the Bill of Rights can you find an absolute prohibition against "regulating" the right being stated. This occurs only in the Second Amendment.
 
Last edited:
I think it's a violation of their oath. The Constitution is a document and not a salad bar or cafeteria plan. You can't pick and choose the parts you wish to enforce or respect (as a restraint against government).
 
TimSr said:
...Nobody ever says a person should have to apply for a government permit, and pass a background check to possess his vocal chords, or a pen, or a word processor, or a keyboard.....
Click to expand...
But the courts have upheld laws requiring permits for public assemblies or permission to publish certain material such as solicitations for the sale of insurance or securities.

Mature First Amendment jurisprudence makes it clear that rights protected by the Constitution are subject to regulation and gives us some idea of the standards which apply to deciding if a regulation of such rights is sustainable or not. But because the rights protected by the First Amendment and the rights protected by the Second Amendment are different and involve different activities and purposes, we can't expect permissible or impermissible regulations of First Amendment rights to exactly correspond the those of Second Amendment rights.

The reality is that the Founding Fathers assigned to the federal courts, in the Constitution, the job of resolving disagreements about what the Constitution means and how it applies.
 
Last edited:
Frank Ettin said:
The reality is that the Founding Fathers assigned to the federal courts, in the Constitution, the job of resolving disagreements about what the Constitution means and how it applies.
Click to expand...

While true, that doesn't reach Aquila Blanca's objection. It seems reasonable for a layman to expect courts to exercise a duty of good faith when construing the COTUS for the purpose of resolving a matter before it.

When a court or advocate confronts explicit language prohibiting infringement with some other standard like shall not be infringed unless Congress thinks otherwise or shall not be infringed unless it seems like a good idea at the time, then that layman can rationally question whether a court has discharged its duty fully and faithfully.

A court isn't charged with perfection; people make innocent errors in judgment. However and especially pre-Heller, the position that the right described in the 2d Am. was old-fashioned and to be ignored or explained away, was too common and lacked fidelity to the text.


Laymen may also fail to distinguish between an explanation of an area of case law, and an endorsement of the reasoning behind that case law.
 
Frank Ettin said:
Mature First Amendment jurisprudence makes it clear that rights protected by the Constitution are subject to regulation and gives us some idea of the standards which apply to deciding if a regulation of such rights is sustainable or not. But because the rights protected by the First Amendment and the rights protected by the Second Amendment are different and involve different activities and purposes, we can't expect permissible or impermissible regulations of First Amendment rights to exactly correspond the those of Second Amendment rights.
Click to expand...
There ya go again, Frank. ;)

This is where I have to disagree with you. I don't disagree that your statement about First Amendment jurisprudence is correct -- as it pertains to the First Amendment. Where I part company is in extrapolating from that to in any way suggest that what applies to the First Amendment should apply to the Second Amendment. The First Amendment does NOT say "The rights enshrined in this amendment shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment does say that -- very clearly.

The problem is that the politicians, and apparently also many of the courts, don't seem to understand the fundamental fact that regulation (reasonable or unreasonable) IS infringement. Certainly, since we live in the real world and we have to approach Second Amendment cases based on what's happening (and has happened) in the courts, we must recognize that this is the way things are shaking out. However, in my non-lawyer opinion, we should never concede -- as a matter of law or fact -- that the Second Amendment is supposed to be subject to regulation. IMHO, we should always, both in courts of law and in the court of public opinion, push back and remind people (and judges) that the language in the Second Amendment is an absolute prohibition on regulation, and since it is unique among the amendments comprising the Bill of Rights it is entirely inappropriate to apply to the Second Amendment any analysis of permissible regulation that might have developed over the First or any other amendment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top