HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Grover vs. the Constituti...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:51 PM

Grover vs. the Constitution



Source: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=306005832832895&set=pb.268963819870430.-2207520000.1354679398&type=3&theater

10 replies, 1081 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 10 replies Author Time Post
Reply Grover vs. the Constitution (Original post)
LuckyTheDog Dec 2012 OP
Whovian Dec 2012 #1
dballance Dec 2012 #2
Angleae Dec 2012 #3
dballance Dec 2012 #4
Angleae Dec 2012 #5
dballance Dec 2012 #7
2naSalit Dec 2012 #8
dmr Dec 2012 #9
2naSalit Dec 2012 #10
ReRe Dec 2012 #6

Response to LuckyTheDog (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:52 PM

1. K&R

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:07 PM

2. I think Grover is a "domestic enemy" of our nation and Constitution

Seriously, he IS requiring our elected representatives to violate their oath of office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:22 PM

3. How? Nowhere does the constitution say that taxes must be increased.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angleae (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:28 AM

4. But the oath of offices does require

the congress people to affirm they are taking it of their free will and without any desire to evade.

Signing and agreeing with Grover is, in my opinion, a violation of their oath of office because either before or after they are sworn in as congress people they are swearing an oath to a non-constitutional entity. They are swearing an oath to not perform one of their constitutional duties which is levy taxes.

No, the constitution doesn't say taxes must be increased. But it does say it's the duty of congress people to levy taxes. Any reasonable person can see we don't have as much of a spending problem as we have a revenue problem. That means congress should follow their sworn duty to levy taxes to benefit the people.

Again, please don't forget that during the Clinton administration taxes were higher yet the economy and stock market thrived. We didn't get into a hole until W. Bush took the Clinton surplus and pissed it away on Medicare Part D (ooooh, paying for drugs for people - that sounds so socialist), tax cuts, and two unfunded, illegal wars and allowing the banks and mortgage brokers to run wild with all the crap securities they sold as AAA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #4)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:40 AM

5. They are not shirking their duty to levy taxes

They are refusing to *increase* taxes which is not the same thing.

As far as it being a violation of their office to swear an oath to a "non-constitutional" entity, what about doctors, lawyers, clergymen, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angleae (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 01:20 AM

7. Yes they are shirking their duty to increase taxes and your argument is irrelevant

What about "doctors, lawyers, clergymen, etc.?" What is your point? As far as I know only doctors swear to the Hippocratic oath. I'm not aware of any requirement for lawyers or clergy to swear to an oath.

And your bringing up "doctors, lawyers, clergymen, etc." is totally off topic and irrelevant. It has absolutely nothing to do with congress persons swearing an oath to the Constitution and my argument they are violating that oath by swearing an oath to Norquist. NOTHING at all. Keep trying to change the subject but I won't let you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angleae (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 02:14 AM

8. Official Oaths

are dependent upon what established authority the party taking such oath demands. Anyone and I mean anyone who takes a job that is on the federal or state payroll in this country takes an oath of loyalty to that official entity, in the case of members of Congress it is the oath displayed in the OP. I have taken that oath myself as does anyone working in a National Park or any other position paid by the treasury. States have similar oaths for their employees and elected officials to confirm that they understand their role and the set standard of loyalty the state requires as representatives of their constituents when making laws and agreeing to administer them and but I am willing to bet they are also required to take the Constitutional oath displayed above. Attorneys take the same oath when admitted to the bar as they are in the profession to advise citizens and non-citizens of the laws, that must be in harmony with the Constitution in this country, when they are faced with legal issues that need someone with explicit knowledge of the laws to assist them in navigating the legal system.

Professional oaths, such as the Hippocratic Oath that doctors take, assure loyalty to the philosophy that embraces the maxim of "do no harm" and is required by the member of the profession such that a unity in loyalty to a moral standard is adhered to.

So, members of any of the groups you mentioned, would be held to the same oath with the one exception of doctors and if they work for the US government in any capacity, they will be taking that same oath.

Grover Norquist, on the other hand, is a political hack, and a piss poor one at that, who has actually participated in treasonous acts and continues to by coercion in that he insists that these members of Congress pledge allegiance to his philosophy/edict that is not guided by Constitutional morality nor is he (or his overlords) interested in whether his pledge meets Constitutional muster. Actually, it's all about usurping the Constitutional oath that these members of Congress are required to observe regardless of any other interest. With regard to taxes, they actually did break their Constitutional oath by signing GN's pledge. What his oath is designed to do is to ensure that the barons of wealth are given legal cover to act in unconstitutional practices that are harmful to the nation as a whole by requiring signers of his pledge to defer their fiduciary responsibility to him, his will and not that of the people who elected them in good faith.

And that is enough to call it treasonous and a host of other terms that should land him in the hot seat with the Justice Dept.. Maybe we'll be lucky and this POS won't be able to slime his way out of trouble this time. He was not convicted when he was found to aid and abet Jack Abramoff, he was a big time lobbyist for the big tobacco corps when they were found to be illegally addicting millions of people... and there's much more but I digress at that point. Suffice it to say, the OP is correct and that should be enough. GN should be stripped of his citizenship and imprisoned for a long time or banished from seeing land again in his lifetime as their is probably no place on this planet for a POS like him. (On a float in the ocean, or maybe the garbage island out in the south Pacific would be suitable in my view.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2naSalit (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:14 AM

9. I wish I could recommend this post.

Welcome to DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmr (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:45 PM

10. Thank you.

Apart from some typos (it was just before I went to bed) it is the reality. I attribute the lack of knowledge some possess to the fact that civics is no longer part of curricula in our education system, a travesty in my reckoning... and I find it highly annoying, sometimes beyond that.

Glad to be a participant in DU, been a lurker off an on for years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LuckyTheDog (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 01:17 AM

6. K&R

For pure-tee purity!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread