Taking an oath to defend the Constitution, even if you don't understand it.

A lot of folks, myself included, get pretty upset when we see people that have taken an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution violate that oath. I believe one of the biggest reasons for this is because they have no idea what the Constitution says. Just yesterday I was talking to my younger cousin that had just completed 4 years of military service. I asked if he ever took an oath to defend the Constitution, to which he replied, "I sure did." I could tell that he was proud of that and I wanted to learn more. So I asked him if the military requires you to take a class or if they do something to the effect of passing out a copy of the Constitution so they are sure that you understand the oath you just have just taken? He replied "no, nothing like that. They just assume you know enough from what you learned in high school."

Wondering how much knowledge that he had on the subject, realizing that most kids screw off in school, I asked him to tell me as much as he could about the Constitution. He couldn't tell me the first thing about it. Being a little shocked I asked him how he could defend something that he knew nothing about? His only reply was "we fight for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Not to seem like I was being disrespectful of his service, I just let it go at that. But I'll have to admit that I'm a bit bothered by this.:uhoh:

I'm with you, got into an argument with a buddy of mine who swore that the separation of church and state was in the Constitution and I'm not sure I convinced him to actually read it.

He'll be assimilated into the collective....lol

You are talking about HS graduate edumicated folk

obama and all elected officials took the oath and most of them either have no clue or are just playing the game. We have been told obama was a Constitutional scholar yet he either has no clue or is evil enough to try to find loop holes around it, I believe the latter.

self preservation said:

SNIP I asked him to tell me as much as he could about the Constitution.

Click to expand...

If y'all want to see gears grind, ask somebody why a constitution would be written at all.

One might say, "to form a government." While true, it misses a bit. One could form a government by electing somebody to be boss, and telling him to get on with it, letting him choose his cronies and adisors and so forth.

After creating a government at all, the most important reason for a constitution is to limit that government. (Or, to lull people into thinking the government so created is limited.)

For example, the English have a consitution. Huh? They have a monarch! Yep. And, a constitution. The British constitution is not a single document like ours. Theirs is a whole series of documents across hundreds and hundreds of years. Magna Carta is a recognized piece. So is the 1689 Declaration of Rights. The point being that their constitution developed over time to limit and control the monarch and his government.

Another example. Everybody's heard of the Roman emperors. Before the first emperor, Rome was a republic with a constitution. The short story is that Rome was, according to tradition, founded in 753 BC. After a while, Rome had a king. Then another, and another...and eventually the Romans got tired of kings and booted out the last one, say about 400 - 300 BC. Like the Brits a thousand years later, the Roman constitution developed over time to limit and control office-holders.

If one didn't care or didn't want limited government, one could just elect somebody to be boss, and tell him to get on with it.

So, the question, "what can you tell me about the constitution" should receive as its first answer, "its only purpose after creating a government is to limit that government."* Every time. Other answers while possibly true, miss the mark.

Or, another acceptable answer would be, "to lull people into thinking the government is supposedly limited."**



*Compare with the government lawyer during oral arguments before the US Supreme court. When asked by one of the justices whether he could imagine any sphere of human activity into which the federal government could not intrude, he was at a loss for an answer.

**A commentator, Gary North if I recall, remarked to the effect that government will always violate rights because rights are limitations, and limitations are not necessary to accomplishing the goals of the office-holders. That's a pretty sweeping statement. But, literally true--limitations are not necessary to accomplishing goals. So, government has no interest in observing limitations placed on it.

I started learning about the constitution more because I had taken the oath.

Contempt for up holding ones oath starts at the top when the bottom people see the top people not up holding theirs they see no reason to do so them selves.

I believe it started when the politicians started with, we only have to worry if a law is constitutional or unconstitutional if and only when the supreme court rules on it.

Giving them a big out for passing laws that they know are unconstitutional or extra constitutional.

They get a huge buy until or if the court ever rules.

Contempt begin started when they believe they well not held accountable for are own actions and they can leave an out of the court hasn't ruled yet.