How do we deal with domestic enemies?

[IndyDave1776]

I have been puzzling over the increasing brazenness with which various actors propose to flagrantly disregard the Constitution.

Article VI, section 3 of the Constitution states:

3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

The oath actually taken specifies that the office holder swears to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

In numerous cases, it is beyond any reasonable denial that those very people taking this oath have no intention of honoring it and in fact ARE the domestic enemies against whom the Constitution needs defended.

Why is this flagrant assault against the republic not prosecuted? What can be done about it?

 

[Kutnupe14]

I have been puzzling over the increasing brazenness with which various actors propose to flagrantly disregard the Constitution.

Article VI, section 3 of the Constitution states:



The oath actually taken specifies that the office holder swears to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

In numerous cases, it is beyond any reasonable denial that those very people taking this oath have no intention of honoring it and in fact ARE the domestic enemies against whom the Constitution needs defended.

Why is this flagrant assault against the republic not prosecuted? What can be done about it?

Simple. In absence of sedition and treason, vote them out.
Is there a specific case that you are thinking where you think someone should be prosecuted?

 

[IndyDave1776]

It would be a pretty long list. It speaks volumes in my reckoning that we had a clear understanding of the Constitution until the packed court and executive branch full of communist sympathizers many of whom were proven to be in regular direct contact with Moscow and now we have yet another generation carrying out those ideals.

The fact that we had key people in agencies including but not limited to the FBI actively trying to throw an election should be self-explanatory in this regard

I really dont feel the need for great detail. It should be obvious.

 

[wtburnette]

It is obvious and I agree wholeheartedly. If examples are needed, you use Rep. Tlaib or Omar. I understand the part about not being barred due to religion, however, it's blatantly obvious that the principles of certain faiths do not agree with what is in our constitution. Therefore it's not really possible for members of those faiths to be able to uphold their oath of office and the tenets of their faith at the same time.

 

[Denny347]

It is obvious and I agree wholeheartedly. If examples are needed, you use Rep. Tlaib or Omar. I understand the part about not being barred due to religion, however, it's blatantly obvious that the principles of certain faiths do not agree with what is in our constitution. Therefore it's not really possible for members of those faiths to be able to uphold their oath of office and the tenets of their faith at the same time.

 

[jwamplerusa]

What the OP is stating is fairly consistent with what has been Central to several of my last missives to my elected servants.

To answer what I believe the question is; I believe we need a Constitutionalist SCOTUS, and a two thirds majority of Congress who are Constitutionalist. With a two thirds majority in Congress, Article I Section V paragraph 2 can be invoked and the socialist members of the body expelled.

It is my position that every Bill, such as HR8 in the current Congress, is evidence of the High Crime of perjury relative to the oath taken pursuant to Article VI.

I have no illusions the above will occur, but it's the only option I currently can envision which doesn't effectively end government " of the people, by the people, for the people".

 

[Kutnupe14]

It is obvious and I agree wholeheartedly. If examples are needed, you use Rep. Tlaib or Omar. I understand the part about not being barred due to religion, however, it's blatantly obvious that the principles of certain faiths do not agree with what is in our constitution. Therefore it's not really possible for members of those faiths to be able to uphold their oath of office and the tenets of their faith at the same time.

Whaaaaaaaaaat?

INGO delivers!

Kut (is in tears)

 

[spec4]

Anyone know if NRA or GOA has ever considered this option? IANAL but wouldn't we all have standing in this? I once contacted the ACLU with this question and never got a response.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Anyone know if NRA or GOA has ever considered this option? IANAL but wouldn't we all have standing in this? I once contacted the ACLU with this question and never got a response.

syntax error: option missing

 

[Twangbanger]

I have been puzzling over the increasing brazenness with which various actors propose to flagrantly disregard the Constitution.

Article VI, section 3 of the Constitution states:



The oath actually taken specifies that the office holder swears to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

In numerous cases, it is beyond any reasonable denial that those very people taking this oath have no intention of honoring it and in fact ARE the domestic enemies against whom the Constitution needs defended.

Why is this flagrant assault against the republic not prosecuted? What can be done about it?

Because, "nobody" can agree on what the Constitution means - therefore "nobody" can agree on what constitutes a "threat" to it. Much less what it means to "uphold" it.

Hell, some people think Trump is a threat to the Constitution. Time to prosecute? By whom? For what?

How do you prosecute Tlaib and Omar? I am not an expert. I can only assume you "disagree" with something they have promoted. But the actual principle in use seems to be, that as long as ideas are promoted in accordance with the "democratic" process, anybody is allowed to propose anything. It does not form the basis for a prosecution.

Frankly, I think in each of the 60 or 70 times a year this question gets raised on INGO, it is the result of religious people whose minds freeze at the word "oath." They are pre-disposed to believe words written on paper are non-negotiable for all time, and are simply unable to use reason in discussing it. They have a problem accepting that in a non-theocratic society, not everyone has to believe the way they do.

Again, like Kut said: vote them out. Why won't people do that? There you have your problem. I understand politicians are snakes. But the idea that "the people" form some repository of wisdom that is able to counter them, is taking hits by the day. Watch any democratic primary debate for proof.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Because, "nobody" can agree on what the Constitution means - therefore "nobody" can agree on what constitutes a "threat" to it. Much less what it means to "uphold" it.

Hell, some people think Trump is a threat to the Constitution. Time to prosecute? By whom? For what?

How do you prosecute Tlaib and Omar? I am not an expert. I can only assume you "disagree" with something they have promoted. But the actual principle in use seems to be, that as long as ideas are promoted in accordance with the "democratic" process, anybody is allowed to propose anything. It does not form the basis for a prosecution.

Frankly, I think in each of the 60 or 70 times a year this question gets raised on INGO, it is the result of religious people whose minds freeze at the word "oath." They are pre-disposed to believe words written on paper are non-negotiable for all time, and are simply unable to use reason in discussing it. They have a problem accepting that in a non-theocratic society, not everyone has to believe the way they do.

Again, like Kut said: vote them out. Why won't people do that? There you have your problem. I understand politicians are snakes. But the idea that "the people" form some repository of wisdom that is able to counter them, is taking hits by the day. Watch any democratic primary debate for proof.

This! Rep'd