This is my first diary.
Cross posted at
http://DemocracyCellProject.net:
"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 that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
Those are the words said by every federal employee, including the Attorney General when they begin their service to this country. The President and Supreme Court Justices say something a little different, but they also take an oath to defend the Constitution. Every Senator swears to this identical oath as well. The supremacy of the oath is manifest by the fact that even Postal Workers swear the same oath.
Take note that none of these oaths are to the Republican nor to the Democratic Party. These oaths aren't even to the people of the United States. These oaths are solely to the Constitution. Yet, when one watches what is happening in our nation's capital, one is inclined to think that despite the oaths our leaders took to defend the constitution, they are more concerned about protecting their political party and their campaign contributors.
Mark Twain once said, "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it."
Today, many Americans' patriotism has been questioned when they have wondered aloud if their leaders were living up to the oath. Many Americans have felt the Iraqi war was a mistake. Yet, our leaders and especially their supporters have decided to question the patriotism of those who exercise their right to question our involvement in Iraq. Our leaders not only question their patriotism, they decide that in order to protect the rest of us, some of these groups should be spied upon. Recently a Pentagon document revealed exactly what types of people the government considers as "threats", not only is Al-Qaeda a threat, but so are Quakers and military recruiting protesters. I would like to know when the decision to consider the Quakers a vital threat to our country's security, was made. I suspect it happened when there was a group of Quakers in Florida that decided that it couldn't support this war.
But it goes beyond the war. It goes to the heart of the constitution and the rule of law that governs our country. It is not just our laws as a whole, but the rule of law that our forefathers fought for and gave to us as a gift. That gift, that enduring promise for future Americans, that gift that patriots over the last two hundred and thirty years have died for, has come under attack.
Some people prefer to see things in a shade of grey. It is easier for them to excuse those who may bend the law. However it is not just a matter of black and white and shades of grey, when it comes to respecting our laws, it is a matter of right and wrong. The laws are not just recommendations that we should try to follow. The rule of law, as I see it, is the way we can live together peacefully and with liberty.
One can't assume the law allows for certain activities - no matter how well intentioned those are. The law requires us to follow prescribed standards. I saw the Attorney General last week, attempting to defend the President from the statements that it wasn't necessary to confer with the Congress, as the law requires, about the President's domestic spying program. Incredibly, the President as late as April 2004, publicly stated that wiretaps require a court order. This is the same Attorney General who once worked as a counsel to the President and said at his confirmation hearings that it was a "hypothetical" question to consider if the President would authorize a wiretap program without warrants when in fact that was exactly what the President was doing.
Which oath did the Attorney General take? Was it the oath to the Constitution or the oath to George Bush?
Our President has decided that the laws were not adequate for him to defend the country from Al-Qaeda, and those determined to hurt us. I don't know if he was right about that - he probably is, but that doesn't give him the legal right to claim that he can ignore the written laws of the land. He should have done what the Constitution requires him to do. He should have gone to Congress and asked for a change in the law. Similarly the Congressional leaders who were "notified" - as they were - of the President's program should admit they did not defend the Constitution as they swore they would. With this issue we are seeing the politics of defending the party (Republican and Democrat alike) instead of defending the Constitution. There are some apologists out there who claim that if the President had done his constitutional duty, we would be less safe. But, I ask them this: Are we safer if we give up our rights to the rule of law? Benjamin Franklin answered that question when he said: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Indeed just before the Civil War, one of our nation's greatest Presidents, Abraham Lincoln, understanding that our county's true greatness and ultimate security laid in the Constitution, mandated that all federal employees within the Executive branch take the oath to the Constitution. Benjamin Franklin and the framers of the constitution recognized human frailties and in their collective wisdom realized that swearing an oath to the constitution itself protected Americans from those leaders who claimed to be acting on behalf of "the people."
It is past the time that Americans demand their elected and appointed officials admit what they claim to be doing on behalf of the American people is a bastardization of the oath they took to the Constitution. We need to remind ourselves, our representatives in Congress and our leaders everyday that it is the Constitution that protects us. Send them a copy of the oath along with your thoughts.