TEA Party congressional freshmen violating their oaths?
By
-
To the editor:
The Constitution contains an oath of office only for the president. For other officials, including members of Congress, that document specifies only that they "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution." In 1789, the First Congress reworked this requirement into a simple fourteen-word oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."
Section 4 of the 14th Amendment states, in simple language, that public debts, once duly authorized by law and including pensions, by the way, "shall not be questioned." The purpose of this language was to foreclose, to put beyond politics, any possibility that the Union would renege on debts and pensions and bonuses incurred to win the Civil War but the application is vert general and courts have ruled that the principals extend to the present day.
That being the case, the so-called deficit hawks who are holding raising the debt ceiling in order to pay for bills already incurred in order to force cuts in future spending while protecting tax breaks for the rich are violating the constitution and in the case of the tea freshman congressman {put in office by what actual surveys have determined to be the most ignorant, misinformed voting block} violating their oath of office.
What is going on in Washington now is total insanity. If someone were to suggest this scenario a few years ago it would have been dismissed as unbelievable.
A party responsible for roughly three quarters of the national debt, thats economic policies have practically destroyed the middle class, driven millions into poverty, made millions jobless and homeless, a leader of which stated that deficits didn't matter not ling ago, lied us into two unfunded unjustified wars, created unfunded prescription drug and other programs, and took us from budget surpluses to record deficits is now blaming the man who inherited the storm they created and insisting on being allowed to complete the destruction they started in order to rebuild the country.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not all that impressed with the Democrats either, but at least they haven't driven all the moderates out of the party and given the keys to nut jobs. There are still a few Democrats who know that social the third rails of Social Security and Medicare have to be adjusted to reflect reality and who are willing to say so. Too bad that there are no Republicans left who are willing to say that we need to end the Bush tax cuts now and possibly consider going back to an even more progressive structure until spending can be reined in.
I keep hearing that government needs to have a budget like we do. Great! We, at least those who can do so, put something away for emergencies. Why is it that if government takes in a little more that it needs it is termed theft and anti government right wingers make the government give it back or liberals make the government spend it?
Along the same lines, does your boss cut your pay when he finds out you have been putting money in a savings account? If the car you need to get to work breaks down you fix it or buy a new one. even if you have to take out a loan to do it. Right? Why is it then that right-wingers want to have an amendment to the Constitution that requires that the government not be able to borrow money in an emergency?
Shouldn't the government have the ability to fix things so that it can keep on working just like we do?
Sincerely,
Charles Leach
Lynchburg[[In-content Ad]]
The Constitution contains an oath of office only for the president. For other officials, including members of Congress, that document specifies only that they "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution." In 1789, the First Congress reworked this requirement into a simple fourteen-word oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."
Section 4 of the 14th Amendment states, in simple language, that public debts, once duly authorized by law and including pensions, by the way, "shall not be questioned." The purpose of this language was to foreclose, to put beyond politics, any possibility that the Union would renege on debts and pensions and bonuses incurred to win the Civil War but the application is vert general and courts have ruled that the principals extend to the present day.
That being the case, the so-called deficit hawks who are holding raising the debt ceiling in order to pay for bills already incurred in order to force cuts in future spending while protecting tax breaks for the rich are violating the constitution and in the case of the tea freshman congressman {put in office by what actual surveys have determined to be the most ignorant, misinformed voting block} violating their oath of office.
What is going on in Washington now is total insanity. If someone were to suggest this scenario a few years ago it would have been dismissed as unbelievable.
A party responsible for roughly three quarters of the national debt, thats economic policies have practically destroyed the middle class, driven millions into poverty, made millions jobless and homeless, a leader of which stated that deficits didn't matter not ling ago, lied us into two unfunded unjustified wars, created unfunded prescription drug and other programs, and took us from budget surpluses to record deficits is now blaming the man who inherited the storm they created and insisting on being allowed to complete the destruction they started in order to rebuild the country.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not all that impressed with the Democrats either, but at least they haven't driven all the moderates out of the party and given the keys to nut jobs. There are still a few Democrats who know that social the third rails of Social Security and Medicare have to be adjusted to reflect reality and who are willing to say so. Too bad that there are no Republicans left who are willing to say that we need to end the Bush tax cuts now and possibly consider going back to an even more progressive structure until spending can be reined in.
I keep hearing that government needs to have a budget like we do. Great! We, at least those who can do so, put something away for emergencies. Why is it that if government takes in a little more that it needs it is termed theft and anti government right wingers make the government give it back or liberals make the government spend it?
Along the same lines, does your boss cut your pay when he finds out you have been putting money in a savings account? If the car you need to get to work breaks down you fix it or buy a new one. even if you have to take out a loan to do it. Right? Why is it then that right-wingers want to have an amendment to the Constitution that requires that the government not be able to borrow money in an emergency?
Shouldn't the government have the ability to fix things so that it can keep on working just like we do?
Sincerely,
Charles Leach
Lynchburg[[In-content Ad]]