you contention that Secret Service agents shall be bound by Article VI to support the Constitution is incorrect. ---- a naturalized citizen is required to swear an oath to protect and defend the constitution ... thus, it is reasonable to assume that a SS applicant, who is required to be a citizen, would be bound to support and defend the constitution
On Jun 6, 2:34 pm, Jonathan Ashley <[email protected]> wrote: > John, > > It is obvious you want to fight the good fight. It is also obvious you > are not equipped to do so. You continually infer that which does not exist. > > Secret Service agents are not "executive or judicial officers" of either > "the United States or of the several states." Therefore, you contention > that Secret Service agents shall be bound by Article VI to support the > Constitution is incorrect. > > By the way, Article VI, paragraph three (properly quoted) states, "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." > > On 06/06/2011 11:32 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > > > Dear J. Ashley: I don't have the "existing Constitution" committed to > > memory. So, I had to scan such to locate Article VI. "... all > > executive and judicial officers, both of the USA and 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 for any office or public trust under the United > > States." That OATH requires supporting that the USA is a REPUBLIC. > > As soon as Barack Obama started appointing czars and making executive > > orders pushing the USA toward socialism and communism, all officers, > > such as the Secret Service, are bound by the Constitution to ARREST > > his skinny ass for treason! Tens of thousands in our military have > > died fighting socialist and communist nations. So, why won't any one > > fight the grave enemy bastard who is in our midst? It's because > > people in government value their identity with... power. Doing WRONG > > makes one seem more powerful than doing right, "because the glory in > > doing right must always be shared with its unspoken moral > > imperative." > > > Jonathan, for a shallow anarchist like you, you seem incapable of > > understanding that the spirit of the overall Constitution has > > deference over any "authorization". The Founding Fathers erred, big > > time, when they just assumed the laws and procedures passed and > > approved wouldn't run counter to this most simple premise: "Fair play > > and democracy shall have supremacy in the USA!� Think about the > > simple premise, guy. So far, you can't see the forest for the trees! > > � J. A. Armistead � Patriot > > On Jun 4, 7:49 pm, Jonathan Ashley<[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> John, > > >> You have certainly lived up to your moniker this time. > > >> Article III, Section 1: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall > >> be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the > >> Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." > > >> How can something specifically enumerated in the Constitution be > >> unconstitutional? > > >> On 06/04/2011 03:37 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > > >> > Dear plainol...: The Federal Government, especially the court system, > >>> has been disregarding the Constitution for over a century. If there > >>> is a disagreement, the only thing the Supreme Court is authorized to > >>> do is to send things back to CONGRESS to be resolved. Nothing in the > >>> Constitution grants one justice more total power than Congress! > >>> Therefore the Supreme Court is Unconstitutional... by RITUAL. � J. A. > >>> Armistead � Patriot > >>> On Jun 3, 3:11 pm, plainolamerican<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> Does the federal government's > >>>> authority to regulate interstate commerce rule, or does the powers > >>>> granted to the states clause rule? > >>>> --- > >>>> what states rights? > >>>> that was resolved in 1865 ... sorta > >>>> it's time for another showdown since it's obvious that the feds pick > >>>> and choose their responsibilities and powers > >>>> On Jun 2, 3:11 pm, NoEinstein<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> No, MJ! Every day, the US Supreme Court is finding interpretations > >>>>> that will allow this, but not "that". Does the federal government's > >>>>> authority to regulate interstate commerce rule, or does the powers > >>>>> granted to the states clause rule? That, supposedly, will determine > >>>>> the constitutionality of Obama Care. As I've explained: The Senate > >>>>> was included ONLY because of the small states' extortion (blackmail). > >>>>> A Representative Republic is PURE; an oligarchy, such as the US > >>>>> Senate, is unfair, undemocratic and thus UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Like our > >>>>> Manchurian Candidate... "President" (gag!), Obama�s being in the White > >>>>> House makes him no less a TREASONOUS bastard! If you want 100 senile, > >>>>> career politicians to run things, then why not propose a constitution > >>>>> without a House of Representatives? For running a government, I'll > >>>>> take the fair and democracy-like House, over our drag-on-government US > >>>>> Senate every time! Harry Reid should be out of a job! � J. A. > >>>>> Armistead � Patriot > >>>>> On Jun 2, 9:25 am, MJ<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> Perhaps we have highlighted (again) yet another of your difficulties. > >>>>>> When you ignore common definitions of words, it is difficult to convey > >>>>>> your message in any meaningful way. > >>>>>> Constitutional, as noted previously is of or by the Constitution. The > >>>>>> Senate is constitutional -- by definition. > >>>>>> Regard$, > >>>>>> --MJ > >>>>>> "[Democracy] is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but > >>>>>> no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture > >>>>>> of socialism, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal > >>>>>> rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive" > >>>>>> -- Westbrook Pegler, popular columnist of the 1930s and '40s.At 08:38 > >>>>>> PM 5/26/2011, you wrote:MJ: What "definition" is that? That an > >>>>>> anti-democracy and anti- > >>>>>> Republic oligarchy has more power than the former two? The US senate > >>>>>> is THE most corrupt band of career politicians on planet Earth! We > >>>>>> could do better by just giving the vote to the first 100 people to > >>>>>> cross Main Street! � J. A. Armistead � Patriot > >>>>>> On May 26, 1:32 pm, MJ<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>> Again, Constitutional is of or by the Constitution. > >>>>>>> The Senate is constitutional -- by definition. > >>>>>>> Until the removal of the check with Amendment 17 (not properly > >>>>>>> ratified per Article V), the Senate was the 'representative' of the > >>>>>>> States -- those entities forming the United States (plural). > >>>>>>> Contrary to your insistence, the Constitution does not create this > >>>>>>> idea of mob rule to which you are so enamored and believe will > >>>>>>> *magically* correct ills. > >>>>>>> Regard$, > >>>>>>> --MJ > >>>>>>> Democracy: A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass > >>>>>>> meeting or any other form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. > >>>>>>> Attitude toward property is communistic ... Attitude toward law is > >>>>>>> that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based on > >>>>>>> deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, or impulse, without > >>>>>>> restraint or regard to the consequences. Result is demagogism, > >>>>>>> license, agitation, discontent, anarchy. > >>>>>>> -- U.S. Army training manual No. 2000-25 (1928-1932)Dear MJ: The > >>>>>>> Founding Fathers were BLACKMAILED into including a > >>>>>>> senate, because small states feared being exploited by larger states. > >>>>>>> The senate is an oligarchy that slaps-in-the-face our Representative > >>>>>>> Republic. Since principles of FAIRNESS are so evident throughout the > >>>>>>> main body of the Constitution, then, the VICTOR in disputes has to be > >>>>>>> the side favoring fair play and democracy! The mere fact that the > >>>>>>> senate was included in the Constitution doesn't make that > >>>>>>> constitutional! Just because 'laws' are passed doesn't make those > >>>>>>> constitutional, either. The US Senate has been a drag of fair play > >>>>>>> and democracy from day one! For the record, the US Supreme Court, > >>>>>>> wherein one justice has a power greater than Congress, or the People, > >>>>>>> is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! Learn, if you can, MJ. So far you seem > >>>>>>> committed to a lifetime of taking-over your flunked courses in how to > >>>>>>> think. � J. A. A. � > >>>>>>> On May 25, 9:43 am, MJ<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>>>> The US Senate, which was originally selected by the legislatures of > >>>>>>>> the several states, was an ill conceived OLIGARCHY. Since there has > >>>>>>>> never been a parity of the population served by each senator, that > >>>>>>>> means the USA has two conflicting political systems, and the > >>>>>>>> oligarchy > >>>>>>>> is the one which isn't FAIR. Giving undue power to smaller > >>>>>>>> population > >>>>>>>> states slaps REPUBLIC ideas in the face. So, the US Senate is and > >>>>>>>> always has been, unconstitutional.The Senate -- by definition -- > >>>>>>>> cannot be unconstitutional. > >>>>>>>> What you (continue) fail to grasp is that the Constitution is/was an > >>>>>>>> agreement between Sovereign States. The Senate is THEIR > >>>>>>>> representative body. Amendment 17 curtailed yet another check on > >>>>>>>> Federal power. > >>>>>>>> Regard$, > >>>>>>>> --MJ > >>>>>>>> The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal > >>>>>>>> government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the > >>>>>>>> State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be > >>>>>>>> exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, > >>>>>>>> negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of > >>>>>>>> taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved > >>>>>>>> to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the > >>>>>>>> ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and > >>>>>>>> properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and > >>>>>>>> prosperity of the State. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > >>>>>>> For options& help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > ... > > read more » -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
