Is there actually any criminal ramifications or civil, towards a person that clearly violates their " oath to support the constitution"?
How sacred is the oath? What are the penalties thereof for any violation thereof said oath?
If we can't bind public officials to their constitutional oath, then what cause of action, do we as citizens possess?
Jefferson opined, we must bind our public officials by the Constitution.. however, while the constitution is the law of the land, what role does taken of said oath play in our society or the breaking of said oath.
Thoughts and opinions greatly appreciated.
Regards
CCJ
Oh, my. Thanks for asking. Several angles present themselves. Bear with me for a second.
What if the constitution itself were based on a lie? No, really. I mean it. If the constitution were based on a lie, we could not bind an honest man--say a cop--to it, could we? How could you bind an honest man, who perhaps did not see the lie, to a constitution?
And, of course, we would be fools to expect a dishonest man to adhere, wouldn't we?
Of course, you knew this was coming: the constitution is based on a lie. Oh, you reject that comment? Look closer my fellow man
"We the People of the united States..."
There it is. Right in the first sentence.
Which people? Lets have a look.
In 1789, when the constitution was "ratified", women could not vote. Women did not get the vote until, what?, 1929? So, right off the bat we can say without any stretch whatsoever that nearly half the people subject to this new "law of the land" had no say in it.
So, lets be generous and say that slightly over half the population were men.
But, wait! There's more!
At ratification, every state required that a voter hold property. Uh-oh. Every
man who did not own property could not vote. Hmmmmm. So, all the male tenants who rented rooms or homes in the cities, and all the male tenant farmers, and all the 21-year olds who had not amassed enough money yet to buy property--
had no say in whether the constitution was adopted. Heck, they didn't even have a say in the legislators who voted for who would sit on the state ratification committees, much less vote directly for the ratification committee members.
But, wait! There's more. Not that there needs to be. By eliminating women and property-less men, we already moved the marker below 50% of the population who would be subject to this document called the constitution having a say in whether it was adopted.
Now, this next point is a little more subtle. I'm just going to throw it out there: they knew slaves were people. No, really. Read. Read a lot. There are plenty of explanations of how slaves were
less than whites. But, hidden in those numerous rationalizations is the massively implied premise that blacks were people.
Well, it is their own words. Slaves were only 3/5 of a person. Ha!! Great! I'll take that argument!! Three-fifths is 60 effing percent, scum bag! By their own effing words, sixty percent of the slave
people ruled by the then-new constitution had no say in the constitution.
Now, of course, sixty percent of the slave population is not sixty percent of the whole population. But, it doesn't need to be.
So, lets have a look at where we are with the math. Women--lets generously say ever so slightly less than half the population. Property-less men--oh, now we've got to be at half the population. Slaves--people by their own admission--no vote for any of them. No, no. Not just the sixty percent, none, not one.
So, less than half the population had no say in the constitution. No, I didn't say less that half voted for it. I said less than half had no say whatsoever.
That doesn't even pass muster for a pure democracy, much less a democratic republic.
And, yet, right there in the pre-amble are those words, "We the People..."
Which people?
If the whole thing proceeds from a lie, how can we bind even an honest man to it?