Dear J. Ashley: A swearing-in could be the reading of the oath by the ranking executive, and having the officer or employee raise his or her hand and simply say: "I do." At that, people rush up to congratulate the person on their new job. Those things get televised on the news. — J. A. A. — > On Jun 7, 1:24 pm, Jonathan Ashley <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry, the press conference you linked to may be labeled "Swearing-In" > by C-SPAN, but it does not show any oath of office taking place. It's an > acceptance speech. Nothing more. > > On 06/07/2011 07:50 AM, plainolamerican wrote: > > > > > > > > > Reasonable to assume? > > ---- > > yes > > > How about some factual evidence? > > --- > >http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/86467-1 > > start listening at 6:50 > > > On Jun 6, 5:17 pm, Jonathan Ashley<[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> Reasonable to assume? How about some factual evidence? > > >> John made a claim which he has as yet been unable to back up with > >> evidence. (This happens regularly, I might add.) > > >> Choose sides carefully.<g> > > >> On 06/06/2011 02:53 PM, plainolamerican wrote: > > >>> 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 > > ... > > 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.
