Punishing the oath breakers

C

cold dead hands

Moderator
This is firearms related in a round about way.

How many elected and/or sworn in officials (politicians, LEO, etc...) actually know and understand the Constitution they have made a public promise to protect? Why don't we make them attend some sort of extensive class room sessions to insure they understand exactly what the rules are supposed to be before they assume their duly appointed positions?

And just how is it that any of these people maintain their position after blatantly defiling that oath, even if it was done out of ignorance?

I think that any violation of the Constitution deserves immediate removal from the position that gave them the power along any chance to ever come into power again. For politicians it even includes revoking any laws they passed that are in opposition to the Constitution. If the offense is malicious enough to liberty then prison should be in the violators future unless they choose to leave the country forever.

Sounds harsh, huh? How else do we get our liberty back? Until those we fear are afraid of the people again then how are we truly liberated?

I want my liberty back!
 
That's a thought. If violating the Constitution could be classified as treason (not currently defined as such) Washington DC would be a ghost town.
 
The Framers chose language which in its generality and simplicity leaves open how some of the key terms and phrases in the document are to be interpreted. It is fascinating how some find absolutes in a document that was intentionally and purposefully left open for interpretation.

Everybody wants to be King. Assassination is the very antithesis of democracy. The proposition that despotism can be destroyed using despotic and undemocratic means is more than a little ironic.
 
GoSlash27 writes:

That's a thought. If violating the Constitution could be classified as treason (not currently defined as such) Washington DC would be a ghost town.

---------------------

Interesting thought me thinks, though possibly a bit overdone not to mention difficult to prove, treason that is. Possibly the following would fly better, though a question does come to mind, that being who would prosecutes the charge, the charge being perjury, applied to those elected things that blithly violate the hell out of their oaths of office.
 
Let it Bleed … Maybe I missed something, but from what orifice did you pull the word "assassination". He was talking about removing from power those who have abused that power.

Personally, I do not believe removing someone from office for breaking their oath would be possible but if it could be done, it would be well justified. Congressmen et.al. are supposed to operate within the frame of the Constitution of the US for the good of the people… not circumvent it by passing unconstitutional legislation.

If they disagree with the constitution, the correct approach for them would be to work towards amendment NOT circumvention.
 
However it is in our law (not sure if in the constitution) that we may add amendments and adjust the law as we go along. The first version of the constitution they tried and failed adn had to redo everything. Right now this is US government v2.02988764311. It is being changed over and over. Everytime a new piece of legislation passes and is signed by the prez it becomes law. So if there is a clause added to the 2nd ammendment to restrict and redefine in modern english language what the 2nd means then it's perfectly leagal and not against any constitutional laws. If all laws were set in stone and could not be removed our system wouldn't work. Slavery was once written in law until it was abolished
 
I think we're conflating amendments with violations. Even wholesale changes to the Constitution are Constitutional so long as they follow the correct process spelled out within the document. It was designed from the outset to be updated.

And yes, there is leeway in there. It allows leadership with differing priorities to follow different approaches to solving different problems. No harm and no foul there.
The problem crops up when politicians ignore the very laws that govern their conduct.
 
Let it Bleed … Maybe I missed something, but from what orifice did you pull the word "assassination".
Click to expand...

Maybe you did. My post was #4 and post #3 authored by Kruniac specifically referenced assassination. Apparently it was removed by the moderators.
 
GoSlash27 wrote:

I think we're conflating amendments with violations. Even wholesale changes to the Constitution are Constitutional so long as they follow the correct process spelled out within the document. It was designed from the outset to be updated.

And yes, there is leeway in there. It allows leadership with differing priorities to follow different approaches to solving different problems. No harm and no foul there.
The problem crops up when politicians ignore the very laws that govern their conduct.
----------------------

Wholesale changes in the constitution, while they might not be agreeable to all, are "constitutional", provided proceedures outlined therein are followed. The problem comes with even minor changes, as well as not so minor changes foisted off on the people, absent the following of established procreedure.

In my view, this would include, but niot be limited to such things as the D.C. Handgun Ban, and other firearms related restrictions, now before the USSC, where the people who enacted them failed to follow the oath of office I assume they took, that bit about "supporting, upholding and defending the constitution, while The Congress, that in 1976 approved this legislative trash, a group that most certainly undertook the above referenced oath of office, obviously failed to uphold same.

As I said in an earlier post, treason might be a tough charge to prove. Perjury, which by the by the bye is a FELONY, is an easier prove, look at individuals undertakings, oaths of office and such, then compare that with actual actions taken and there you have it, assuming of course that the charge would be prosecuted. The remaining question is who would prosecute the charges, possibly our so-called Dept. of Justice? Anyonre hear laughter in the background, or might it be a cry of disgust?
 
JPFO alert and reference to a you tube presentation, looks interesting

removed and reentered as New Thread.
 
Last edited:
The cry of disgust is actually the weeping for my lost liberty and the further damage to my children's future by those who trample the laws they swore to defend. My anger is heard when I scream about the gutless cowards who can bring these evil doers to justice and they do nothing.

To paraphrase...''all evil needs to do to win is to have good men do nothing''.
There has been a whole lotta nothing going on for far too long.

I am not talking about overthrowing the government. I started out ok and just needs to be pushed back to what it used to be. But how? What does it take to punish those we've trusted to do good and they turn around and hurt us in any way they can?

Seeing as how the DoJ doesn't want to do their duty, who do we turn to? Who has the power to make charges stick until crimes against all of America are punished?

Or are we just victims of a cruel master with no hope for salvation?
 
I think that any violation of the Constitution deserves immediate removal from the position that gave them the power along any chance to ever come into power again. For politicians it even includes revoking any laws they passed that are in opposition to the Constitution. If the offense is malicious enough to liberty then prison should be in the violators future unless they choose to leave the country forever.
Click to expand...

Are we talking here about bills that the politicos write? It is the Supreme Courts responsibility to decide if such a bill/law, when challenged, is within the Constitution.
So who then must decide if it is a "malicious" offense?
 
On numerous occasions I have written my "D" and "R" state and US congressmen and senators asking that they introduce legislation that would amplify enforcement of EXISTING fraud laws to go after politicians to prosecute them and impose RICO statutes against their property if they are found to lie in campaigns. This should be simple within existing laws using the exact laws that individuals and corporations are held to. I always ask that they enforce these laws against current members and old members, even if they are on their death bed, repealing any statute of limitations. I have only a small hope it will happen. I just want them to worry until their death that they will find themselves rotting in a dirty prison cell.
 
How many elected and/or sworn in officials (politicians, LEO, etc...) actually know and understand the Constitution they have made a public promise to protect? Why don't we make them attend some sort of extensive class room sessions to insure they understand exactly what the rules are supposed to be before they assume their duly appointed positions?

And just how is it that any of these people maintain their position after blatantly defiling that oath, even if it was done out of ignorance?

I think that any violation of the Constitution deserves immediate removal from the position that gave them the power along any chance to ever come into power again. For politicians it even includes revoking any laws they passed that are in opposition to the Constitution. If the offense is malicious enough to liberty then prison should be in the violators future unless they choose to leave the country forever.
Click to expand...

Apparently, you seem to be having quite the problem with Constitutional laws as well. Thunderhawk88 is right.

There already exists policy and procedures for removing elected officials from office.

But if we are going to make such changes, can we also go back to burning witches and the like?
 
The Constitution and Bill of Rights are supposed to be the highest law of the land.

Ignorance of a law the politicians swear to uphold is no excuse. Ignorance of law is not an excuse for mere citizens. Why does the congress, executive branch and judicial branch told themselves to lower standards than they hold me to? It seems apparent they see it as their power trip.
 
thunderhawk,

I'd call denying people their 2A rights to self defense malicious. I would say that 3 a.m. warrant servings are malicious and violate the 4A. Need more?

No law repugnant to the Constitution should even make it to the floor for a vote, Therefore the SCOTUS need not be involved. If Congress acted within their limitations the only time we would need the SCOTUS is when an Executive decree or a Constitutional amendment needed challenging.

Even with the SCOTUS able to strike down a law where is the punishment for those who enabled the passage of a law that would be deemed harmful to the people. The Constitution was designed to protect the people as well as establish the workings of government.

Go ahead and harm someone publicly (not violently) and let me know how that works out for ya.

There is plenty of punishment for us, why not any for them?
 
DNS,

Simply removing a person from their position is not truly a punishment. There needs to be something to fear besides losing a job. I don't think you understand me. If it makes you feel better I keep a copy of all the ''important papers'' like the Constitution, Declaration of Dependence, etc... at my desk for easy access. I am not ignorant in this regard.

Article 1, section 4:...punish it's members for disorderly bahavior...concurrance of 2/3's expel a member.

Expulsion is not punishment for malice against the people and the Constitution. Considering they keep giving themselves raises every year I find it hard to believe they're not on the good ole boy system and unlikely to do anything against one another especially expulsion.

Article 3, section 2: The trial of all crimes ...shall be by jury.

Lying about the oath you took is perjury (a felony) and needs to go to a jury trial. If you are found guilty of subversive actions against the people and Constitution and therefore due some prison time. This applies to ALL public servants under oath. Especially judges who legislate from the bench when the Constituon is an obsticle to there idea of the law.

Am I clear enough yet?
 
So now, if we don't like the laws passed, and the Supreme court overturns said law what? We take the law's authors out and shoot them? For crimes against the state? Hmmm...got ot think about that one Comrade!

Am I clear enough yet?
Click to expand...

No, you're frightening!
 
At what point did I say death was a suitable punishment? Are you reading the same words I am typing? You might want to have your eyes or your computer checked.

Their crimes are not against the state. Their crimes are against the people.


If I frighten you I imagine that you are in the category of people I refer to as The Scared. The concept of a government that serves the people and places you in control of your own life from 18 'til death tends to bother people. It is a form of weakness that can be overcome if you are truly capable of understanding that you are going to have to fight if you want your liberty back. That is if you even know what liberties have been stolen from you.
Once you understand what I am talking about you will be angry too. After that I may not frighten you.

You do know that leaders have been killed for crimes against the people. Sadaam and Mussolini come to mind right off the bat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top