You Swore On The Bible - An Open Letters to Members of Congress

[Ugnmoose]

This is an absolutely fabulous letter that hits the nail squarely on the head. I think it is something that all DU'ers should copy and send to their respective reps.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_andrew_b_060626_you_swore_on_the_bib.htm

snip:

You Swore on the Bible: An Open Letter to the Members of Congress
by
Andrew Bard Schmookler

Dear Members of Congress:

Each one of you who serve in Congress took an oath:

"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."
.

A Promise to God

You promised us –you promised God-to defend the Constitution.

An oath is supposed to mean something. In our civilization, an oath is understood to be

"a special appeal, an expression of sincerity backed up by the threat of divine retribution should the uttering prove false–hence the term ‘oath-breaker'. An oathbreaker was assumed to have committed a crime against God or of some divine entity, which would lead to damnation or another form of severe penalty."

Did you take your oath seriously? Or were these just meaningless words you spoke so that you could step into your position of power?

From some of you, we sometimes hear the expression "God-fearing," but can anyone who can swear on the Bible "So help me God," without meaning what he says, be God-fearing?
.

The Constitution Now Needs Defending

Most of the time, that oath of office does not require the Members of Congress to do much. That's because the Constitution doesn't generally need defending.

But has there ever been a moment in American history when the Constitution has needed defending more than now?

Has not a disturbing pattern emerged? From what we reliably know, and from what the administration itself has disclosed, is there not already discernable a pattern of disregard for the law and of presidential power-grabbing?

We see this in the warrantless searches; in the apparent practice of torture; in "signing statements" numbering over 700; in the deception of Congress on vital national issues, including matters of war and peace; and in the succession of bogus arguments advanced by this administration to justify its usurpation of power and its assault on our system of checks and balances.

Is there not more than enough evidence to require that you at least suspect that the Constitution stands in need of defense? Yet you are not rising to its defense.

Would not a Congress that kept faith with its oath of office at least be seriously investigating this apparent assault on the Constitution? Yet serious investigations have not been conducted, and indeed have been repeatedly blocked.

But really, on some matters, there's grounds for more than mere suspicion. The American Bar Association felt it had enough information, for example, to declare unequivocally that the administration violated the FISA law. Moreover, this administration has advanced claims –in written documents, and in public statements-- that it doesn't have to obey the laws passed by Congress. And it has declared that itself not subject to judicial oversight. If such claims are not an assault on the Constitution, what would be?

Under these circumstances, your failure to defend the Constitution, after taking such an oath, is simply dishonorable.