Binding Politicians -- First Step Posted by Dave Lyons

Posted 10/26/08 Last updated 11/07/08

BINDING POLITICIANS – First Step

If elected office holders are 'BOUND” to uphold the US Constitution, what if anything, is available to to hold them to their oath?
I will approach this subject having you know that the things I present, including my comments, are my opinion. They are based upon my concerned and informed opinion alone having no more merit than the reader is willing to adopt. It's up to you to determine if I'm talking with understanding or writing things from a brain cramped looking glass view. If you understand the basis of my approach, then I will rely upon a common and popular phrase echoed copiously over the airways today. That is, 'going forward' I present my view which is probably very idealistic on; BINDING POLITICIANS. So, let's see what we can do with this important issue.

In the US Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 3, we find these words; “The Senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution.”

The US Constitution requires an oath from more than just federal level office holders. It extends the requirements to the States and its office holders. Not just a few selected offices are affected either. Notice, it includes “all executive and judicial officer, both of the United States and of the several states.” That's everyone in political office. That should be interesting to you. Here is one way to expand the apatite you may have acquired upon noticing the above. First, understand what it means to be bound.

BOUND -- “As an adjective, denotes the condition of being constrained by the obligations of a bond, contract, or other moral or legal obligation. As a noun, denotes a limit or boundary. “Bound” may signify the limit itself, and “boundary” designate a visible mark which indicates the limit.” Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.”

Let us attempt to develop an understanding of the definition before us. Take first, the word “support” from Article VI of the US Constitution. Black's Law doesn't render a definition that would make sense to the article. But it does refer us to a legal concept that does define the word. It's called an obligation that is a “legal duty”.

LEGAL DUTY – “An obligation arising from contract of parties or the operation of the law. That which the law requires to be done or forborne to a determinate person or the public at large, correlative to a bested and coextensive right in such person or the public, and the breach of which constitutes negligence. Also, an obligation recognized by law which requires an actor to conform to a certain standard of conduct for the protection of others against unreasonable risk.” Black's Law

Well, now we get a few forty dollar words to deal with, but we can handle that because there is a sense of meaning beginning to form in context. We see that the actor (the one taking an oath) must conform to the US Constitution. We also see that there is a standard involved that requires an obligation. The standard, of course, remains the constitution. And we see that breach is possible with consequences borne out of their negligence. We should also see that their obligation is a legal one because the US Constitution is “The organic and fundamental law of a nation or state” (see Black's Law Dictionary).

Now, there is another, perhaps a silent action taking place when an oath is given. The individual giving the oath is doing so willingly. His or her willingness is demonstrated by standing, raising their right hand and repeating the oath verbally and publicly. The act is a demonstration of consent. I'll not belabor the idea here but offer a short definition from Black's Law.

CONSENT – “A concurrence of wills. Voluntarily yielding the will to the proposition of another; acquiescence or compliance therewith.”
An oath given is almost more powerful in law, and in society, than at first thought, as we can see here. The oath given is a serious matter, breach of which, could have great consequences for the giver. But I'm not going to get into that in this offering. I'll do that later. There is much to develop here, and enough is enough when approach in segments could lead to better ends, more operating power.

On the other hand, I remind you that this material is gathered to support my opinion. My opinion, and the material should need investigation by you, and proved to certain ends. But I'll ask; can you see into the future to see where such ends may lead? I can say this; it will be interesting and just might offer a part of the foundational principles for Constitutional government that we desire.
Dave Salty1988