A Reasonable Democrat... er... Independant
I took an oath when I began my service as a United States senator. I put one hand on the Bible and the other hand in the air. My oath, as I interpreted it, was to carry out my constitutional responsibility to do what was best for my state and my country. You don't do that by taking polls. I understand the unpopularity of the war. I understand the frustration of the American people as they watch the deaths on TV every night. I, of course, share that frustration. In some ways I feel it even more deeply than most because I have supported this war. That's why I would--I would like to see us out of there as soon as possible.
But I have a responsibility to take a view beyond today's polls and think about the security of my children and grandchildren, and your children and grandchildren-- everybody's children and grandchildren. And the fact is, if we just pick up and leave Iraq it will be a disaster that we will pay for for a generation, and I don't want to do that.
Senator Joseph Lieberman
Face the Nation
August 20, 2006
from the mind of... Eric | 7:58 PM
9 Comments:
Actually, he is running as a Democrat without the support of the party in his state.
And, I'm pretty sure the oath he took was to "preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States," which is pretty plain, not to "do what was best for my state and my country," which is always debatable.
He was principled, and he got my vote once. Now he makes me tired.
For those who care, here is the text of the oath of office administered to all members of Congress...
"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."
Now, as to what exactly is meant and implied by the phrase '...support and defend... against all enemies foreign and domestic'...
Well. I reckon that's a matter for honest debate, by nobler men than I.
ER is correct; despite the (I) that will follow his name, should he win-- which seems all too likely --he will still be a 'democrat'... By his own admission. His congressional record shows he votes with democrats 90% of the time.
Despite the fact that I like Joe, I find it disconcerting nonetheless that so many Connecticut republicans are jumping onto the Lieberman bandwagon. It would seem the token republican in this race is just that-- a token; and Connecticut republicans know it. I have a feeling Alan Schlesinger (R) knows it too.
Perhaps even more disconcerting is the fact that the President is supporting Lieberman and not the republican candidate, Mr. Whatsizname. In any other state, Bush's support would probably be that candidates death-knell......
Politics is perhaps the worlds most peculiar animal.
I find it rather amusing, as well, that Lieberman, who is Jewish, considers himself bound to an oath made upon a Bible, which points to, and speaks of, Jesus throughout both Testaments. There's more than a touch of irony there. But then the act of swearing on a Bible doesn't establish the veracity of ANY oath; only personal integrity can do that, and I believe Joe has integrity... Despite being a democrat.
As far as actual U.S. code - you are not required to swear upon any document when taking an Oath of Office. If a senator want's to swear on the bible it's his own personal choice. An aetheist would be just fine raising only his right hand.
From the US CODE:
TITLE 5, PART III, Subpart B, CHAPTER 33, SUBCHAPTER II, § 3331 - Oath of Office
"An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: 'I, AB, 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.' This section does not affect other oaths required by law."
No. No mention of a Bible. I would say however that use of the Bible has the weight of tradition-- many, many years of tradition --dating all the way back to George Washington himself... Right or wrong.
I think it's safe to say that the Bible is not used in every oath of office, or in a court of law, but again, it's extremely prevalent even today, primarily because this nation was founded by Christians, on Christian principles.
I just found it odd hearing Lieberman, who is Jewish, claim to have sworn his oath on the Bible. Why not the Torah? If the purpose of the Bible is to make an oath more binding, or give it greatest weight of making the oath before God Himself, why wouldn't Lieberman have asked for a Torah?
I personally like the practice.
As to the raising of one's right hand, a second look at US CODE §3331 shows there is no such requirement. Again, it's tradition-- A tradition that also has a foundation in Judeo-Christian belief-- primarily symbolic --that all things on the right-hand are good and righteous, whereas everything on the left-hand is wicked. A person who raises his right hand to swear an oath is considered to have made a vow that his testimony/oath is made with righteous consideration of the consequences of failing that oath.
"A tradition that also has a foundation in Judeo-Christian belief..."
Of course, in the anabaptist tradition, one does not take any oaths at all. We choose to take the Bible literally at least where it says:
"make no oath at all... But let your statement be, ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no’; and anything beyond these is of evil"
Matt. 5:33-ish
Valid point but off-topic. It's Judeo-Christian tradition not denominational specifics.
Valid point nonetheless.
Post a Comment
<< Home