Why we do not deserve better

I wanted to start a thread on why America does not deserve better and I will supply some information to back up my claim here. One of the main duties of the President of the United Stats of America is to defend and uphold the constitution. It says so right in the Oath of Office that must be taken before the President can enter office. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."Oath of Office

How does anyone who is ignorant to the constitution ever get any votes for the presidency? How can anyone vote for someone who does not know what it is that they are supposed to "preserve, protect, and defend"? Ladies and gentlemen I give you one example here. Granted, it is older but it applies to this thread.

Mitt Romney. Example 1: In example 1, Mitt is asked a question and he defers to Ron Paul because Mitt does not know the answer. The audience just laughed.

Example 2: In example 2, Mitt is asked a question concerning the constitution. Mitt's answer was "You sit down with your attorneys" who tell you what you have to do.

That is two instances of ignorance on the constitution. Again, how do you "preserve, protect, and defend" something when you do not even know what it says.

Again, this is from 2012. But Mitt Romney received 60,933.504 votes. 2012 results The American people will not get it any easier until they take responsibility for themselves. You can't vote someone in who is ignorant on what they are supposed to "preserve, protect, and defend" and hope for the best and expect things to get better. That's Nancy Pelosi type logic.

Just in case the videos do not embed, here are the URLs:

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

I am sure there are other examples but these were the ones that came to mind. And I seriously have my doubts about any of the current presidential candidates knowing the constitution but it doesn't seem to be a big deal for voters.

Y'all can't blame me when the train wreck happens, I didn't vote.

Take it away Sir George…

Mature Language Warning

That's one heck of a coincidence, I was just laughing to myself about that this morning in the shower. Call lawyers LOL what an idiot he was. This is how dumb Romney is, he said Trump wont be the nominee. LOL

www.youtube.com...

Romney will definitely be helping Rubio but good luck with that one Mitt.

The votes don't matter WHEN YOUR A DEMOCRAT. The republicans wrote rules for their delegates to keep Mitt Romney safe from Ron Paul in 2012, I suggest the democrats make those same rules. The delegates would be bound by the popular vote.

originally posted by: Blueracer
That is two instances of ignorance on the constitution. Again, how do you "preserve, protect, and defend" something when you do not even know what it says.

Most people do not know what it says, they only think they know what it says.

For example, the Constitution never mentions limited government and if anything authorizes a large government under the idea of general welfare. Plenty of people think it says small government though because they misinterpret some amendments to mean states have all the power, when it's actually saying states/people have the power that the fed's don't care about at that moment when taken in concert with Article 1 Section 8 that authorizes pretty much everything.

Even among those who do know what it says fewer know what it means considering the interpretation of the Constitution has been a matter of debate among judges and especially the Supreme Court for over 200 years.

a reply to: Aazadan

But this isn't a case of Mitt interpreting or misinterpreting. He just flat out did not know.

originally posted by: Blueracer
a reply to: Aazadan

But this isn't a case of Mitt interpreting or misinterpreting. He just flat out did not know.

I had no idea he was running for President this term (invisible candidate) or a proxy for another?

originally posted by: Blueracer
a reply to: Aazadan

But this isn't a case of Mitt interpreting or misinterpreting. He just flat out did not know.

The Constitution is definitive on very little, and is in many cases contradictory. Saying in absolute terms that something is or is not allowed will almost certainly cause one to be proven wrong. It's much better to defer to others and then blame them when some group attacks him over the answer.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Who said he was running for president this term?

a reply to: Aazadan

That's a copout. If you have to defer to someone else, you shouldn't be running for president.

originally posted by: Blueracer
a reply to: Aazadan

That's a copout. If you have to defer to someone else, you shouldn't be running for president.

So you believe one should be a Constitutional lawyer as a prerequisite for the job?

Even those people don't have all the answers and take differing interpretations of the document.

Or perhaps you think people should just believe they know, without actually knowing. In which case you've summed up atleast 98% of the population on pretty much every topic.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Blueracer
a reply to: Aazadan

That's a copout. If you have to defer to someone else, you shouldn't be running for president.

So you believe one should be a Constitutional lawyer as a prerequisite for the job?

Where did I say that? One should know what they would be taking an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend". How can one "preserve, protect, and defend" the constitution if they do not know what is in it?

originally posted by: Blueracer
Where did I say that? One should know what they would be taking an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend". How can one "preserve, protect, and defend" the constitution if they do not know what is in it?

The Constitution is a very vague document that is open to interpretation. What one person believes it says it not necessarily what it actually says.

Even the people who are supposed to be experts on it like Constitutional lawyers cannot come to a consensus on pretty much any part of it.

Therefore no one actually knows what's in it, they can only believe they know what's in it, and ultimately if/when a consensus is ever reached it will only be a consensus of what people think it means. We can't actually go back and ask the people who wrote it for clarification and even if we could it's unlikely they could provide that clarification as it was originally written to be vague specifically so it could get broad support by different groups who could divine different meanings from those words.

a reply to: Aazadan

Thanks for your opinion. You won't be getting my vote for president.

originally posted by: Blueracer
a reply to: Aazadan

Thanks for your opinion. You won't be getting my vote for president.

To go further on this your Example #1 (I didn't watch the others) isn't even accurate. The question isn't asking Romney what's in the Constitution, both him and Paul understand what I just brought up. The question Romney was asked is if he believes states can ban contraception or if there's a constitutional right to privacy, and if such a thing exists does it prevent such a ban.

Romney's actual answer when pressed is that the question makes no sense, a right to privacy is not the right typically brought up in this case and the two have very little overlap. The moderator then tries to shift that into a states rights debate, changing the question and the clip ends.

a reply to: Blueracer

If one is mentally incompetent to marry, one may not. That is to say, if one does not understand the concept of marriage, that it binds two people until death in ideal circumstances, that it unionises two previously individual persons into a single unit, that both parties must love, care for, cherish and respect the other, for the rest of time, then one may not be married.

That is why people who believe that the sky is bright green, that up is down, that they arrived on this planet on the back of a space unicorn, and that their intended spouse is merely one of an interchangeable harem of persons they might or might not be having intercourse with, in order to establish communications with their families in the custard dimension, are considered mentally incompetent to marry.

Now, I understand that the constitution is a much more complicated concept than marriage on the face of things, but the consequences of allowing someone with all the understanding of the document one would expect from a poodle with a brain tumour, to establish themselves as a potential candidate for the presidency is a much bigger problem, than one would have in allowing the aforementioned dimension hopper to get hitched.

For a start, the scale of the thing. I realise that failed marriages are terrible things to witness, especially when a child is born into that fractured household, but a president can mess things up for a great many more people at once, than can be affected by an ill advised matrimonial union between two completely crazy people. Candidates for president must at least have the understanding necessary to have read, digested, and researched the document that they will swear to uphold, not only so that they are aware of their responsibilities, but also in order to understand what the limitations of their power are, and ensure that they never attempt to exceed them, lest chaos befall as a result.

Now, the consitution is a fairly comprehensive and concise bit of work. It is not very many pages long, especially in its unabridged original condition, and the wording is not so complicated that someone who has been to university for any acceptable reason (no...not football) ought to find it impenetrably difficult to comprehend. In fact, I think many would agree that it is a document that anyone of any intellect what so ever, can digest with relative ease, especially when compared to modern legalese.

So there really is no excuse for someone to even aspire to the presidency, until or unless they have not only read the defining document which one would be duty bound to uphold in taking the position, but to comprehend it well also. These are MINIMUM requirements! The very least that one should expect from a candidate! How the hell is a candidate supposed to guide the nation, and act in the interests of the constitution and the people, if he or she has no ability to comprehend the easy part of the job? People are always complicated, both individually, and as blocs of thought on a political landscape. That much is certain. The people are the hard part, dealing with their needs, crises, and fears. But the constitution is a simple bit of work, which lays out in relatively simple terms, the concepts upon which the United States is founded, and to be incapable of operating a working knowledge of the document should be an immediate disqualifying factor for candidacy.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Thank you. Very well said.

originally posted by: Blueracer
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Who said he was running for president this term?

Why the inference?

a reply to: vethumanbeing

I think you are completely missing the point. Either that or intentionally trying to derail.

originally posted by: Blueracer
a reply to: vethumanbeing

I think you are completely missing the point. Either that or intentionally trying to derail.

Why bring up Mitt Romney or Ron Paul in this election cycle? What relevance could that outcome possibly have other than taking votes away from front runners in 2012? This year is 2016.