Swear an Oath to Protect and Defend, but How Many Mean it?
I wonder what it means anymore when certain politicians, one hand on the Bible, the other up toward the heavens, swear a solemn oath to, “…protect and defend the Constitution…?” Is it dishonest to even run for, or accept appointment to an office when you’ve publicly expressed disagreement with, disrespect for, and in some cases, even disdain toward the U.S. Constitution? How can any person of honor swear an oath under such circumstances? I suppose I’ve just answered my own question.
It would seem two things are likely: one, these politicians simply don’t think about it; they don’t take the oath seriously, their word means little. It’s just a ceremonial part of taking office. Or, much worse, they are conscious about their opposition to the very thing they just swore to uphold and protect—they simply don’t care.
The common argument between traditionalists, libertarians, and conservatives, and progressives, liberal, and most certainly socialists is, the former believes in the Constitution as the Framers wrote it, and amended through proper constitutional procedures; the latter believes the Framers meant for it to be a “living” Constitution, which would change with the times, but not necessarily through the amendment process, but by legislation and administrative fiat.
It’s sad that so many politicians and bureaucrats take their oaths as frivolously as is their allegiance to the Constitution.