Open letter to Cox News re: Presidential Oath of Office

[grasswire]

My letter to Bob Deans, White House Correspondent for Cox News Service:


Mr. Deans:

When Scott McClellan answered your question in Tuesday's press briefing, he once again deliberately misrepresented the president's responsibilities. He said:

"When the President took the oath of office, he took an oath based on the Constitution that said he will do everything he can to protect America from all threats, foreign and domestic."

Here is the actual presidential oath of office, as set forward in the Constitution:

"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."

When will a WH correspondent ask Mr. McClellan about this discrepancy? Does the president believe the oath he swore requires him to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution above all else?

Apparently, a policy (successful or not) that seeks to offer physical protection of Americans now has risen in preeminence over defense of our bedrock Constitutional guarantees under this White House. This is sobering, frightening reality. The president's responsibilities have been twisted in order to justify military actions and a generational war that most Americans do not support, while concomitantly installing programs that grab power to himself in ways the founding fathers repudiated.

Will you ask the question as a followup to McClellan's statement to you? Does the president believe his oath of office requires him to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution? Or has the oath become weakened to suit policy?

Thank you for all you do. Only you stand between the people and tyranny.

[BlueEyedSon]

1. K&R (kicked and recommended)

[hobbit709]

2. K&R

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. Excellent! K&R!! eom

[grasswire]

4. I see that democrats.com has picked this up

http://www.democrats.com/node/7450

There are a lot of comments following the site's commentary. Worth seeing.

[gratuitous]

5. I'd dearly love to see Mr. Deans' response

The Republicans are quite adept at faking what things say: McClellan and his boss faking what the presidential oath of office says, military generals trying to rewrite the Fourth Amendment, and on and on. Mr. Deans now has the proper text before him, so Scott's bamboozling language should be sloughed off. I hope he reminds Scott what the actual language of that constitutional oath is.

You know, for all their claimed fealty to plain texts and original language, the Republicans sure do like to try to futz things up with misquotes. After awhile, it almost looks intentional.

[grasswire]

6. If he writes, I'll let you know.

He has answered me in the past, when he was the president of the White House Correspondents Association. Perhaps he will.

I've learned through google that I'm not the only one unhappy about the disinformation about the oath of office. Here's a snip from another web site:

The Most Vital of National Interests

The moral character of the president in his private life does matter. As the most prominent personal embodiment of the nation, the president inevitably is a kind of role model. So President Clinton’s dalliance was not altogether irrelevant to his fulfillment of his job as president.

But the suspicions about President Bush’s violating his oath to protect the Constitution relate to the very core of his presidential responsibilities.

As the oath makes clear, the Constitution is the heart and soul of America. It is the inner sanctum that our public servants swear to protect; the great gift that our soldiers have fought and died for, the very foundation of our national identity. Even while we Americans divide on many issues, the sanctity of the Constitution is what unites us. It is our core assertion to the world that “we are a nation of laws, not of men.”

In this context, what could matter more than whether the President of the United States is honoring his oath of office, or whether he is treating the Constitution as an obstacle to be casually, needlessly swept aside?

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_andrew_b_060117_hey_mainstream_media.htm

[gratuitous]

8. He sounds like one of the "good uns"

I hope Deans sets Scott straight on just what the wording of the oath Bush took upon his assumption of the presidency, and presses for a response from the little pischer.

[satya]

7. Thank you! This has been bugging me too, their contention that the job of

the president is to "protect" us. And I, too, noted Scotty's odd response in yesterday's press conference.

I propose we send the entire * administration to a remedial class in Constitutional law.

on edit: oops, I need REMEDIAL (not rememedial) typing.

[farmbo]

9. D'oh! Bush has an 'out'. He only has to defend the US Constitution ...

..."to the best of my ability".


Jeezze...this man does'nt have the "ability" to chase a scared chicken downstairs with a broom.

:eyes:

[RobertSeattle]

10. I like to show people the Military Officers Oath as well

Oath
I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the (Service) under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and 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.

Funny - nothing in there about sycophant support of the President as long as he's a Republican.

[nancyharris]

11. Oddly enough

the Vice-President does take that oath:

"I do solemnly swear 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 I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

and so do members of the US Congress:

"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."

However the Supreme Court Justices do not:

"I, , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.''

[satya]

14. I didn't know that -- thanks for the post. nt

[Kota]

12. The constitution protects the people.

[grasswire]

15. yes, exactly

It appears to me that the founding fathers considered the idea of a power-hungry president more of a potential danger to the people than foreign threats.

[Contrary1]

13. The boy king must have muttered something to that effect

right after taking the oath..

We all know how he likes to interpret things differently.

[bmcatt]

16. Instead of a signing statement...

Did he make an "oathing" statement about how he'd only preserve, protect and defend the Constitution where it allowed him to expand the powers of the Executive Branch?

[Inland]

18. Hah! beat me to it.

The old signing statement, "this isn't going to stop me from doing what I want to do" tool for all occassions.

[grasswire]

19. oathing statement

That's good.

[Inland]

17. delete