Bush Has Forgotten His Oath of Office

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

This is the oath of office that every US president has been required by the Constitution to take upon entering office. President Bush has sworn to it twice. I publish it here to remind us all that it does NOT say "preserve, protect and defend the United States". That's what Bush seems to think he swore, and he uses that as a justification to ride roughshod over our Constitutional protections. He just leaves out the phrase "the Constitution of".

So what's lost when he forgets his primary responsibility?

• His obligation to respect and protect the power of Congress to make "Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water" - like every enemy combatant in Gitmo, those held in secret prisons, and those held in the US.
• His obligation to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". That would include the law prohibiting the government from spying on citizen's without a warrant. The laws against torture.
• His obligation to ensure that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States". We can debate whether or not there's a religious qualification for judicial nominees, but I doubt anyone would debate that there's a requirement for those working in his Community and Faith-Based Programs offices.

And I haven't even gotten to the bill of rights. There, we find that he's neglected the public's right to "be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." He's forgotten that "No person... shall be ... compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." (By the way, that's No person not No citizen.) He's ignored Amendment VIII, which deals solely with the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

Whenever I hear the president or his cohorts justify his actions because of his first priority to defend the United States, I think "no, that's not right." Because his first priority, as set out in the Constitution, is to protect the Constitution itself. That takes precedence over everything - even our lives. The founding fathers could have written an oath binding presidents to protect the United States. They didn't. As a conservative  nominating  "originalists"  to the  Supreme Court,  Bush might apply the same principles and commit himself to the original  intent of the  founders. And defend the Constitution above all.

Comments

[RightWingRocker]

Yeah.

He's also followed in the footsteps of his Democratic predecessors, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton, and either continued or implemented programs not authorized by the Constitution, such as Socialist Security, welfare, medicare, and No Child Left Behind.

You libs should be cheering.

RWR

[kbonline]

The Constitution doesn't "authorize programs". It delineates the responsibilities and limitations of power across three branches of government so that when the government does implement programs, it's clear who has the authority to do what. In this instance, Bush neglected the Constitutional limitations on his power. I'll take social security over warrantless spying any day. And unlike the Federalist Society, I believe that the Constitutional obligation to promote the general welfare of the country covers more than the economy - hence social security, welfare, medicare, et al.

[RightWingRocker]

It delineates the responsibilities and limitations of power across three branches of government so that when the government does implement programs, it's clear who has the authority to do what.

According to the Constitution, the programs I listed are under state jurisdiction.

So where does Congress get off implementing them?

RWR

[Lees_Sword]

I have taken the liberty of copying and posting the original message at my semi-public website because of its exactitude in what I am wanting to present to my invitees. I have fully credited the copy to your site and will remove it if you wish. I hope you don't ask for that because our purposes are identical.

My site is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/citedsources

Citedsources is a totally free, non-commerical information site that works much like a reference library for files pertaining to the Bush administration.

Thank you.

Lees_Sword