What do you think "support and defend" mean in the US Federal Oath of Office?

@ParaTed2k (22940)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
January 10, 2011 8:07pm CST
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God." This is the oath of office taken by all incoming Senators and members of the House of Representatives. Senators and House members have stated that they have no responsibility to making sure a bill is constitutional. They pass that buck on to the Supreme Court. They have decided that the Constitution doesn't apply to them at all, it is just some ancient textbook that only means what the modern populism wants it to mean. But if each Senator and House member takes an oath to support it and defend it, how can any of them say it's the job of the Supreme Court to "support and defend" it?
3 people like this
6 responses
@dragon54u (31633)
• United States
11 Jan 11
That oath is one reason I'm so glad they actually read most of the Constitution recently. They and the people need to be reminded of what they are obligated to protect. Michelle Bachman is holding classes on the Constitution and I think they should be mandatory, although right now they are voluntary. Students should not be given diplomas in high school until they can pass a test on the Constitution. It is our most precious document, the key to running this democratic republic and has been ignored for too long.
1 person likes this
@Rollo1 (16676)
• Boston, Massachusetts
11 Jan 11
When I was in school, we did study the Constitution and were tested on it. My daughter is half-way through high school now, and the only thing she's learned thus far is the Preamble. I haven't seen evidence that they've studied it much deeper than that.
@Adoniah (7512)
• United States
11 Jan 11
I honestly do not think that members of the House and Senate spend a lot of time worrying about whether a bill is in line with the Constitution or not...That is someone else's problem. They are just out to get what they can get for their state and their pockets. Nothing else matters. Politics and Politicians are so corrupted that there is no hope anymore.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
11 Jan 11
So what do you think the oath should mean to them?
@Adoniah (7512)
• United States
12 Jan 11
A photo~op.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
12 Jan 11
I know you think that's what it means to them.. but what do you think it should mean to them?
@laglen (19759)
• United States
11 Jan 11
very good point. Maybe with awareness and the resurrection of this ancient text, we can start running the country by this template
• United States
11 Jan 11
In a nut shell this may explain the shooting in Arizona. Jared Loughner was very emotionally upset because our currency is not backed up with gold. In 2007 Jared Loughner attend a meeting held by congress women Gifford. He asked her if government is not good on their word then what good is having a government? He did not like Gifford's answer, he told his friends that she was stupid.He was visibly very upset with congress women Gifford,according to his friends. She became the only name on his assassination list, She was the target of the shooting at the Safeway store in Arizona last Saturday according to law enforcement.As long as congress members do not read and steady the bills and keep on pasting them even if they are unconstitutional pushing the American peoples backs harder against the wall unstable people are going to come out of the wood work.When unstable people do come out of the wood work innocent people are going to die.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
11 Jan 11
And even more unstable people will demand the same government take our rights it "protect" us from ourselves.
@Rollo1 (16676)
• Boston, Massachusetts
11 Jan 11
This is one area where I think that every branch of government needs a refresher course. While it is true that the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority when laws are challenged on Constitutional grounds, they don't go around looking for unconstitutional laws to rule on. On the other hand, when they receive a case, they need to not make new law through judicial review but rather to stick to their duty to determine constitutionality. Congress may not be the ultimate authority to rule on the Constitutionality of a bill but they should be responsible to know the scope of their employment (they are employees of the people, after all) and the limits of their authority. No member of either house should introduce legislation unless they have made a reasonable effort to make sure that any power given by that legislation to the government is a Constitutional one. They need to be aware of what their job really is. They must never intentionally introduce a bill that they know exceeds their authority to enact. Similarly, the President needs to know and understand the scope and limits of his powers and strive to stay within them. It seems that each branch of our government has, over the years, taken upon themselves more power than given them by the Constitution and expanded their areas of influence over the lives of Americans. I think that taking an oath to uphold the Constitution needs to mean that the oath-taker must not just look at fulfilling their duties but be acutely aware of the limits and scope of those duties and not to go beyond them.
@sender621 (14889)
• United States
11 Jan 11
I believe that support and defend means just what it says. It means you should show honor and loyalty to your country., You should do whatever you can to sustain it for the liberty of everyone.