View Full Version : Erick Erickson proposes pledge of strict constitutionalism
erowe1
09-23-2010, 02:43 PM
The head of Red State, which explicitly banned all supporters of Ron Paul in 2008, now says that the pledge the GOP should make is to support the federal government only exercising those powers that are enumerated in the Constitution and no others.
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/09/23/i-have-a-better-pledge-suggestion/
MRoCkEd
09-23-2010, 02:45 PM
I like it!
erowe1
09-23-2010, 02:47 PM
I do too. I just don't buy it.
Thomas
09-23-2010, 02:48 PM
thank you Rand Paul
MRoCkEd
09-23-2010, 02:48 PM
I think Erick's a pretty good guy.
Original_Intent
09-23-2010, 02:51 PM
Isn't that called an oath of office? :confused:
wormyguy
09-23-2010, 02:54 PM
He's awfully fond of undeclared wars.
(As a side note, how would one constitutionally go about declaring war on a government that the US doesn't recognize? Issue a declaration of war in Afghanistan, for example?)
The head of Red State, which explicitly banned all supporters of Ron Paul in 2008, now says that the pledge the GOP should make is to support the federal government only exercising those powers that are enumerated in the Constitution and no others.
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/09/23/i-have-a-better-pledge-suggestion/
Do undeclared wars like Iraq count as unconstitutional?
Romulus
09-23-2010, 02:59 PM
He's awfully fond of undeclared wars.
(As a side note, how would one constitutionally go about declaring war on a government that the US doesn't recognize? Issue a declaration of war in Afghanistan, for example?)
Allowing private airlines to arm their pilots and conduct their own security measures is a good start.
Dr.3D
09-23-2010, 02:59 PM
Well, I for one don't trust any of these people and their pledges. I want them to give us an option to enforce those pledges. If they violate their pledges, there has to be a penalty, and that penalty should be included in the pledge.
This has from what I've seen, been the problem with the U.S. Constitution, it doesn't give the people the teeth required to make those who would violate it suffer some sort of penalty.
sailingaway
09-23-2010, 03:14 PM
I like it, but as I commented there, if they don't obey the oaths of office they already take, what will make this different?
Cowlesy
09-23-2010, 03:28 PM
Levin has convinced most of these guys that the Constitution doesn't explicitly state you must "Declare War," but rather that the Congress has the right to decide to go to War, "Declare" being an anachronistic term which, in Levin's view means, "To give the President the power to go to War."
That aside, Erickson is good on a lot of stuff, but I don't see eye-to-eye with him if he follow Levin's logic on it.
Travlyr
09-23-2010, 03:46 PM
Well, I for one don't trust any of these people and their pledges. I want them to give us an option to enforce those pledges. If they violate their pledges, there has to be a penalty, and that penalty should be included in the pledge.
This has from what I've seen, been the problem with the U.S. Constitution, it doesn't give the people the teeth required to make those who would violate it suffer some sort of penalty.
Sure it does... call their bond. If they violate their Oath of Office, then they can be removed from office.
U.S.Constitution Article VI. Clause 3
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; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
THE PURPOSE OF A PENAL BOND BINDING A PUBLIC OFFICE HOLDER TO THE PROMISES CONTAINED IN THE OATH OF OFFICE
NMSA 10-2-9: Each and every person who may hereafter be elected or appointed to office in New Mexico, is required by law to give bond, shall file the same for record before entering upon the discharge of the duties of the office.
All persons elected or appointed to a state public office are mandated, within 30 days, to take the oath of office prescribed under Article XX, Section 1, Constitution of New Mexico, and as soon after doing so within the 30 day grace period, they must give a signed penal bond binding them to the promises contained in the oath taken; otherwise, the office becomes vacant. At the end of the 30 day grace period, failure to complete any of the required steps necessary to enter the office prevents one's entry into the office and prohibits one from discharging the duties of that office and denies one from being impeached from office. Being bound by oath is mandated for all public officers, both state and federal, by Article VI, Clause 3, Constitution of the United States.
Upon giving a signed penal bond and upon having evidence of both the oath taken and the bond given is recorded among the Records in the Office of the Secretary of State, the person elected or appointed to public office then becomes eligible to take the office to which they were appointed or elected and thereafter, and only thereafter, to discharge the duties of that office.
By taking the oath of office, one initiates a common law contract with the public at-large. Upon presenting the evidence of the oath taken and the signed penal bond given for recording, the oath taker becomes bound by the penal bond to the promises contained within the oath. At that point, the contract is consummated since the bond recorded becomes the oath taker's consideration to the general public, which is then matched by a grant of the public's trust as their consideration for the contract, and that trust is exercised only from within the office held.
An abuse of office does not withdraw the public trust as the law covering the duties of office applies. Only a failure to keep the promises made upon taking the oath is the essential fact necessary to withdraws the public trust which is accomplished simply by calling the bond from the Office of the Secretary of State with the proof of the breach. The penal bond insurer is then required to pay the value of the bond to the State Treasury. The insurer may then seek relief for having paid off the bond proceeds in a court of law against its offender, the penal bond holder. Upon entering office, the office holder may, at times, abuse the office by a deliberate act at which time the liability insurance coverage for the office, not the person, may compensate the injured party in a tort action.
Brett85
09-23-2010, 03:58 PM
Levin has convinced most of these guys that the Constitution doesn't explicitly state you must "Declare War," but rather that the Congress has the right to decide to go to War, "Declare" being an anachronistic term which, in Levin's view means, "To give the President the power to go to War."
That aside, Erickson is good on a lot of stuff, but I don't see eye-to-eye with him if he follow Levin's logic on it.
I can't stand Levin. It hurts my hears to listen to him talk.
Dr.3D
09-23-2010, 04:02 PM
Sure it does... call their bond. If they violate their Oath of Office, then they can be removed from office.
U.S.Constitution Article VI. Clause 3
THE PURPOSE OF A PENAL BOND BINDING A PUBLIC OFFICE HOLDER TO THE PROMISES CONTAINED IN THE OATH OF OFFICE
NMSA 10-2-9: Each and every person who may hereafter be elected or appointed to office in New Mexico, is required by law to give bond, shall file the same for record before entering upon the discharge of the duties of the office.
All persons elected or appointed to a state public office are mandated, within 30 days, to take the oath of office prescribed under Article XX, Section 1, Constitution of New Mexico, and as soon after doing so within the 30 day grace period, they must give a signed penal bond binding them to the promises contained in the oath taken; otherwise, the office becomes vacant. At the end of the 30 day grace period, failure to complete any of the required steps necessary to enter the office prevents one's entry into the office and prohibits one from discharging the duties of that office and denies one from being impeached from office. Being bound by oath is mandated for all public officers, both state and federal, by Article VI, Clause 3, Constitution of the United States.
Upon giving a signed penal bond and upon having evidence of both the oath taken and the bond given is recorded among the Records in the Office of the Secretary of State, the person elected or appointed to public office then becomes eligible to take the office to which they were appointed or elected and thereafter, and only thereafter, to discharge the duties of that office.
By taking the oath of office, one initiates a common law contract with the public at-large. Upon presenting the evidence of the oath taken and the signed penal bond given for recording, the oath taker becomes bound by the penal bond to the promises contained within the oath. At that point, the contract is consummated since the bond recorded becomes the oath taker's consideration to the general public, which is then matched by a grant of the public's trust as their consideration for the contract, and that trust is exercised only from within the office held.
An abuse of office does not withdraw the public trust as the law covering the duties of office applies. Only a failure to keep the promises made upon taking the oath is the essential fact necessary to withdraws the public trust which is accomplished simply by calling the bond from the Office of the Secretary of State with the proof of the breach. The penal bond insurer is then required to pay the value of the bond to the State Treasury. The insurer may then seek relief for having paid off the bond proceeds in a court of law against its offender, the penal bond holder. Upon entering office, the office holder may, at times, abuse the office by a deliberate act at which time the liability insurance coverage for the office, not the person, may compensate the injured party in a tort action.
And just who does one appeal to when there has been a violation? Surely it wouldn't be the Federal Supreme Court. That would pretty much be like appealing to the person who violated their oath of office.
erowe1
09-23-2010, 04:05 PM
Levin has convinced most of these guys that the Constitution doesn't explicitly state you must "Declare War," but rather that the Congress has the right to decide to go to War, "Declare" being an anachronistic term which, in Levin's view means, "To give the President the power to go to War."
That aside, Erickson is good on a lot of stuff, but I don't see eye-to-eye with him if he follow Levin's logic on it.
Even at that, the enumerated powers include national defense. But most of what Republicans in Congress happily legislate our military to do are not part of national defense in any way.
Travlyr
09-23-2010, 04:10 PM
And just who does one appeal to when there has been a violation? Surely it wouldn't be the Federal Supreme Court. That would pretty much be like appealing to the person who violated their oath of office.
You contact the Secretary of State, prove that the office holder violated their Oath of Office, and call their bond. It requires proof, but that is all... courts have to accept proof.
Dr.3D
09-23-2010, 04:18 PM
You contact the Secretary of State, prove that the office holder violated their Oath of Office, and call their bond. It requires proof, but that is all... courts have to accept proof.
Then why isn't anything being done?
Travlyr
09-23-2010, 04:24 PM
Then why isn't anything being done?
Because the people have not read the Constitution, they do not understand their rights and they are generally too lazy to perform their duty. But you do have to hand it to the elite for confiscating our schools... they completely indoctrinated us.
Now, something is being done about it in New Mexico. Read the lawsuits filed by Kenneth Gomez: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=261101
Especially read paragraph 11 of the posted letter.
Agorism
09-23-2010, 04:42 PM
How about they just pledge to vote no on everything proposed except tax cuts. That would be fine too.
klamath
09-23-2010, 04:48 PM
Good for Erick.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.