Oath of Office

The Constitution contains an oath of office only for the president. For other government officials, including members of Congress, the document specifies only that they "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support the Constitution."

The First Congress, in 1789, reworked this requirement into a simple fourteen-word oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."

At the beginning of the Civil War, Congress expanded the oath. That text is the earliest direct predecessor of the current oath. Then, in August 1862, a section was added, known as the "Ironclad Test Oath."

It required all civil servants and military officers to swear not only to future loyalty, as required by the existing oath, but also to affirm that they had never previously engaged in criminal or disloyal conduct. Those failing to take the 1862 Test Oath would not receive a salary. Ironically, Congress did not extend coverage of the Ironclad Test Oath to its own members.

In 1884, two decades after the Civil War ended, Congress quietly repealed the Test Oath section, leaving intact what is today's current affirmation of constitutional allegiance:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) 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."

You would think that in order to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" that you would need to know and understand the Constitution right?

When asked where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that the government can mandate that everyone have health insurance:

Mary Landrieu (D-LA) - "Well, we're very lucky as members of the Senate to have constitutional lawyers on our staff, so I'll let them answer that." By the way, if you don't know who Mary Landrieu is...she was on the fence with the health care reform bill until she found out that in it contained a $300 million "bribe" for her state. (Source: Glenn Beck - Unconstitutional Care segment, 12/14/2009)

James Clyburn (D-SC) - "There's nothing in the Constitution that says the Federal Government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do." (Source: Brian and the Judge 9/8/2009)

Nancy Pelosi (D-CA, Speaker of the House) - "Are you serious? Are you serious?" (Source: cbsnews.com 10/22/09)

Mary passes off the question to the lawyers. James freely admits that it's unconstitutional. And the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi is flabbergasted that the question was even asked!

It's not about health care reform of helping those who don't have health insurance. It's about putting an infrastructure in place that allows the government to seize more control over our lives.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmS0bZS4Rx4

Cut and Expand

The U.S. Senate has been debating the health care reform bill the past couple of weeks. During this time it was voted that Medicare funding would be cut by $400 billion. On another subject, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has said, "We've overcome a real problem that we had," announcing what he called a "broad agreement" Tuesday night.

That agreement...the new government run health care option is dead. Off the table. Dead. Iced. No longer exisits. Instead they've decided to expand an already existing government run health care plan - Medicare. This plan will open Medicare benefits to uninsured Americans from age 65 to age 55 starting in 2011.

Didn't they just vote to cut Medicare funding and now they want to expand eligibility coverage?

"60 Minutes" did an exposé on Sunday October 25, 2009 on Medicare fraud. Presented by CBS's Steve Kroft outlines facts and figures that are unsettling on how the system gets milked for an estimated $60 billion per year! Read summary here.

By the way, isn't Medicare bankrupt? Or about to be? Hmmm, let's cut funding and then expand it! That makes perfect sense! (Can you sense my sarcasm?) Fraud will double. Taxes will surge. Benefits and quality of care will drop. How can they not see this? How do members of Congress who are for this expect to remain in office? I am tempted to move to another state where the congressmen are for this just to help vote them out of office next year!