(Thanks, A. :)

Reader AC writes:

***************************************************************************

Re: Reader Charles: 'HOW DOES BERNIE TAKE THE ....

Does swearing an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution have any real meaning any more? How many times, over the years, and in how many ways have our so called "law makers" violated their oath of office by enacting laws that are blatantly against what is in the Constitution?

The Constitution, besides laying out the structure for the new federal government, has as one of its main purposes, imposing very strict limitations on the powers and the grant of authority being given to the government. It did this first by listing the enumerated powers that the federal government was being granted. And then was furthermore continued with the first ten amendments to the Constitution which are known as the Bill of Rights and which has stated clearly in its Preamble what its intended purpose was. Yes, the Bill of Rights has a Preamble which states its purpose as being the following; that the Founding Fathers agreeing to have; "...expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added"? And so this makes very clear that in addition to the limitations of power and authority expressed in the original document by virtue of the very specific enumerated powers being granted to the government, that further restrictions and limitations of power and authority were in fact the specific intent and purpose in drafting these original ten amendments to the Constitution?

Furthermore, under the rules of contract law, an amendment permanently alters and changes the original document as it overrides and "supersedes" everything that came before it. Whatever terms and provisions in the original document that the government may rely on to make its claim of having been given certain authority under the Constitution (such as their use of the commerce clause or supremacy clause) are in fact overriden and superseded by the amendments and the only lawful way they can write laws violating what is an an amendment is by first making the required formal change via the amendment process. As an example, the 18th Amendment made Prohibition the law of the land and no act of the Congress could end that mistake and so not until with the passage of the 21st Amendment did we see an end to the era of Prohibition. Yet how many times have we seen government via simple acts of the Congress or via presidential executive orders do an end around the Constitution and commit violations against constitutionally protected Rights in direct conflict with their constitutional authority and in direct violation of their oath of office?

These actions should have serious consequences (for them) and should in fact result in the loss of their position within the government... and possibly even worse.

*** Post this one Hobie if you have the courage to do so.

***************************************************************************