"I Do Solemnly Swear" . .
By William Bailey (11/14/07)
I don’t know how anybody else feels, but I’ve grown tired and weary and am becoming angry at Federal officials who place their hand on a Bible and raise their right hand and swear to their oath of elected office. And, this has nothing to do with party or any particular office, for I have come to believe that it’s true of both parties and all offices. It seems that they no sooner get in office than they begin to go about violating the very oath they took.
There are different oaths for those serving in the three branches of the Federal government. However, there is a common thread that runs through all of them . . . “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” In the case of the Legislative branch, there is further specificity in the oath where it proclaims that the person “solemnly swearing” to the oath, “take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion”. It goes on to say, “and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God”. In addition to this being pretty serious stuff, the oath is that which is prescribed in the United States Code, Title 5, Part III, Subpart B, Chapter 33, Subchapter II, Section 3331. So, while violation of the oath is pretty serious stuff on its face, it’s also a violation of Federal law.
For the life of me, I don’t understand how one can state that they are taking an oath “without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion” when they immediately begin to take (or propose) actions that are in direct violation of the Constitution they swore to defend and uphold. Makes no sense.
It seems (at least on the surface) that once an individual becomes a member of any of the three branches, they believe they now hold the power. Certainly, the Constitution does bestow certain specific powers on all of the branches, but the question becomes . . . does it go to the limit some members seem to think it does. Many need to be reminded of the following:
“It is the people, to whom all authority belongs.” (Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane,
1821)
“We the People of the United States . . . “ (Constitution of the United States)
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it
to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” (Tenth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States)
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are
few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous
and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects as war,
peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which lasts the power of taxation will,
for the most part, be connected.
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in
The ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people,
and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the States.” (Federalist No. 45,
James Madison)
“We of this Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves.
No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery
Trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest
generation.” (Abraham Lincoln; December 1, 1862)
Before going any further, let me state that I know there are those elected Federal officials who believe in and attempt to uphold and support the Constitution. I have just reached the point where I’m not sure they are in the majority.
One such official is Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ). Beginning in 1995, at the beginning of each new Congress, Congressman Shadegg has introduced HR 1359 (the Enumerated Powers Act). This Act, not yet enacted into law, is quite simple. It reads, “Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of the Act. The failure to comply with this section shall give rise to a point of order in either House of Congress. The availability of this point of order does not affect any other available relief.”
HR 1359 has 28 cosponsors in the House of Representatives. If enacted, the Act would require Congress to specify the basis of authority in the Constitution for the enactment of laws and other congressional actions.
Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton, Madison and the other Framers of the Constitution knew exactly what they were doing when they specified the powers of the Federal Congress in Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1-18. Over the years, in order to expand their powers, Congress has taken to using the “general welfare” and “commerce” clauses as their authorization to go beyond the specified powers.
Insofar as the “general welfare” clause use as a justification for bigger government, Thomas Jefferson said, “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” James Madison put it this way, “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.”
Relative to the “commerce clause”, interpretation of how this clause affects the powers of Congress has been something causing intense political controversy. As has been noted, the Founders’ understanding of the word “commerce” is unclear. The judicial history is too lengthy and far too involved to get into an depth discussion here. However, it should be noted that, in 1995, Chief Justice William Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court in United States v. Lopez (later clarified by United States v. Morrison). There the Court ruled that Congress had the power to regulate only:
* the channels of commerce
* the instrumentalities of commerce, and
* action that substantially affects interstate commerce
Thus, the Federal government did not have the power to regulate relatively unrelated things such as the possession of firearms near schools, as in the Lopez case. This was the first time in 60 years, since the conflict with President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936-37, that the Court had overturned a putative regulation on interstate commerce because it exceeded Congress’s power. Justice Clarence Thomas, in a separate concurring opinion, argued that allowing Congress to regulate intrastate, noncommercial activity under the Commerce Clause would confer on Congress a general “police power” over the Nation.
So, what does all of this have to do with “solemnly swearing” and taking an oath ? To me it’s very simple. As stated earlier, the oath is specific in the requirement to support and defend the Constitution. If one doesn’t do that, then the oath has been violated.
Many issues are out there at the present time. Some dealing with sovereignty (the Law of the Sea Treaty; the Security and Prosperity Partnership; and the Trans-Texas Corridor); others dealing with that horrid subject of “earmarks”.
With reference to the latter, let’s look at just one single piece of legislation . . . the Department of Health & Human Services appropriations bill. According to Citizens Against Government Waste, there are 2,274 “earmarks” totaling $1 billion in this bill alone. Everything from the AFL-CIO Working for American Institute, AFL-CIO Appalachian Council, Bismarck State College, “abstinence education”, a Thomas Daschle Center for Public Service and Representative Democracy at South Dakota State University. And the list goes on and on and on.
While (generally, but briefly) on the subject of fiscal irresponsibility of the Congress, please remember that the National Debt of the U.S. now exceeds $9 TRILLION. That means that every American (man, woman and child) has a liability (debt) of almost $30,000 that they did not incur . . . their elected officials did.
If the citizens of Walla Walla want a museum or an art gallery, why should the citizens of Wichita be called on to help pay for it. There was a time when communities took care of themselves, their needs and their desires. (I have nothing against Walla Walla or Wichita).
At some point in time, if we are to have any chance of recovering this Republic which we cherish, we’ve got to come back to one simple, basic foundation . . . the Constitution of the United States.
Based on a recent poll from Opinion Research Corporation, there must be quite a few Americans who have become concerned (disenchanted ?) with their political officeholders. This poll, released on November 9, 2007, reveals that 53% of Americans believe that most members of Congress do not deserve to be re-elected. If you combine that with the current approval rating (which is at the lowest ever) for Congress, we ought to be getting a message and should be planning corrective action.
Another thought about oaths . . . when a person testifies in a Court of Law in this Nation, they are required to take an oath that they will tell the truth. If they are found to be doing otherwise, they are subject to conviction for perjury and being incarcerated. So, we will jail those who violate an oath as witness . . . and re-elect those who violate their oaths of office. There’s something wrong with that picture.
All who are familiar with the Declaration of Independence will remember that the fifty-six who signed it took a very serious, solemn and somber oath: “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”
“Lives, Fortunes and sacred Honor”. . . the ultimate oath. Would that we could get to the point that the same applied today.
In closing, since this is the weekend where we celebrate both the birthday (232nd) of the U.S. Marine Corps and Veteran’s Day . . . let’s pause and thank all who have served, and are serving, to protect freedom and liberty in this Nation by honoring the oaths they took.
William D. Bailey
(Printer friendly version) Email: William Bailey
