Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

stellanoir

(14,881 posts)
19. Congress could be challenged by this clause cleverly embedded in their oath of office. . .
Tue Apr 12, 2016, 10:31 AM
Apr 2016

“. . . I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;”

Kindly riddle me these two glaringly long winded puzzlements . . .

How pray tell, does pledging an oath to never, ever, ever, raise taxes on the “elite" beneficiaries of the greatest wealth from our economy, no matter what the heck the national circumstance (even boneheaded protracted exorbitant quagmires), *not* qualify as a rather *severe* “mental reservation”. . .?

Aaaand. . .

How are a flopping unprecedented seven year frenzy of filibusterings & onerous obstructions of any & all populist matters of legislation, and crucial judicial & ambassadorial confirmations, the often & long stated willful intent to entirely sabotage the executive branch, the intransigent avoidance of ever taking a transparent accounting of military, no-bid contracting, and “intelligence” expenditures & corporate subsidies, incessantly denying proven science, refusal to enact sensible gun legislation, whilst relentlessly hacking of our once emblematic “social safety net”, and environmental protections, not completely tantamount to gross “evasion."

To say nothing 'bout this : http://yournewswire.com/missing-13th-amendment-found-no-lawyers-in-public-office/

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I agree metroins Apr 2016 #1
Probably, but it's not even about Hillary. It's about our supposed democracy in general. However, RKP5637 Apr 2016 #2
Representative Democracy metroins Apr 2016 #3
... but the delegates do not necessarily have to follow what the people voted for. n/t RKP5637 Apr 2016 #4
Neither do our congressmen or presidents nt metroins Apr 2016 #6
Yep, is that ever true!!! n/t RKP5637 Apr 2016 #9
Too simplistic. To be heard you need to advertise. To advertise, you need money. randome Apr 2016 #5
Yes on public financing. ...but I don't think politicians should buy elections with their own money. RKP5637 Apr 2016 #10
Career politicians are bad? Dr Hobbitstein Apr 2016 #7
Far too many career politicians. I'm speaking of the future. n /t RKP5637 Apr 2016 #11
So he gets a pass... Dr Hobbitstein Apr 2016 #14
Yep, as does Hillary! n/t RKP5637 Apr 2016 #18
Get rid of caucases too Beaverhausen Apr 2016 #8
Yep! Caucuses were likely great eons ago, but IMO not in the 21st Century. n/t RKP5637 Apr 2016 #13
Don't forget the damned EVM's stellanoir Apr 2016 #12
Definitely!!! But as is often the case, it just morphs along. The entire voting system needs to be RKP5637 Apr 2016 #16
Congress could be challenged by this clause cleverly embedded in their oath of office. . . stellanoir Apr 2016 #19
So let's go back to the genteel corruption-free politics of the 1870's! whatthehey Apr 2016 #15
LOL!!! n/t RKP5637 Apr 2016 #17
You mean the Tammany Hall era? Retrograde Apr 2016 #20
Voting in general elections, sure Spider Jerusalem Apr 2016 #21
I agree Johonny Apr 2016 #22
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»All voting should be open...»Reply #19