Mr. Obama believes that his oath of office is subject to interpretation

For those who watched the 44th President take an oath, pay not attention to the oath but the words spoken afterward.

Obama has stated that life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a collective pursuit and not an individual one. He has also stated that the oath and constitution is subject to interpretation.

(someone please soon as it becomes available, please post the youtube video)

Thank you openmindcuriousmind for the link

Also, I am not aware of this song "battle hymn of the Republic" has ever been played before a Presidential Inauguration. But the song itself was written one month after the civil war, which seems to be Mr Obamas main focus. But I found it rather disturbing given its current venue and the Presidents current stance towards the constitution, civil war and Mr Obamas personal reflection and likening to former President Lincoln.

Battle Hymn of the Republic
en.wikipedia.org...

Thoughts?

reply to post by txinfidel


I'm real familiar with the tune. It's on my playlist for Patriotic as well as the 9/11 stuff I dig out once a year to mentally set myself for remembrance.

I'm not simply put off by his near obsessive symbolism of Lincoln and the Civil War by how MANY totally separate things have now been said or done leading up to and during this. I'm not put off because I find myself really disturbed.

It's like finding the guys in a Missile Silo spending their time reading about the Duality of Man or admiring the prose of Marx and Mein Kampf. A time and a place for everything ...and right now with tensions HE largely has created by his choices and methods used in pursuing his agenda as President .... His fixation on the darkest period our nation has ever endured is UNSETTLING.


This reminds me of the drills done on Dec 21st, the exercises and drills done in late Sept of 2011 during THOSE dates of high tension among some segments of the population and a dozen other TOTALLY tone deaf brain farts we've seen masquerading as good ideas. Umm... He needs better political advisers. The one's he has only think for about 50% of this nation...IF that.

reply to post by txinfidel



Who get to interpret the constitution and oath of office? Can I interpret them my way and apply my new found knowledge in a court of law?

If not, then it is pretty obvious that these things are NOT subject to interpretation!

Obama has stated that life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a collective pursuit and not an individual one.

Collective my azz! What the Bloods, Latin Kings, Mara Salvatrucha (MS13), Liberals, Conservatives, Libertarians and any others with labels do to pursue their happiness is NOT what I want to do.

Not to mention that life itself is an individual right, not a privilege!

Obama has stated that life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a collective pursuit and not an individual one. He has also stated that the oath and constitution is subject to interpretation.

He also talked about "American exceptionalism" which is an individual pursuit not a "collective" one

He talks out of both sides of his butt.

When a law is ambigious, it then can be subjected to interpretation, to find its clearer meaning but not dilute its essence.

However the 2nd amendment is VERY CLEARLY stated, backed up with logic over its purpose that is even relevant in this modern era.

Only the president's words at the inaguration is ambigious, and he should have stated clearly and exactly what he meant, unless words hold no meanings to him, which is an interpretation now of what did he meant, which may be wrong or right.

Seems strange choice of words for him to use, when he had just made his vow and oath to the Nation.

If he or any other elected official who is NOT SURE of what the oath means or entails, or is so ambigious that it needs interpretation, then he should not have made that oath in conscience and just walk away, and let another who is sure, honest and has integrity to live up to his oaths without any misinterpretations, to take the job.

I wonder if he's going to blame the last 4 years on the guy who was president then.

Wait. . . what?

Did anyone else notice the extra length of his suit coat?

Very similar to Lincoln. But I think he lost his top hat. Or would that have been too obvious?

Originally posted by txinfidel


Obama has stated that life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a collective pursuit and not an individual one.

He has also stated that the oath and constitution is subject to interpretation.

Could you please provide qoutes/links, ideally with context, as to what you are saying the President stated?

Dunno how to embed, but here's the link... youtu.be...

The Constitution is the guarantor of Individual Rights which, of course, is in direct conflict with the Progressive Agenda which is the collectivization of America (the road to socialism...which is the road to serfdom also).

reply to post by Indigo5


Full Text here.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

reply to post by txinfidel

He has already shown that the requirement of being a "Natural Born Citizen" is subject to interpretation (if not obfuscation).

Originally posted by txinfidel
For those who watched the 44th President take an oath, pay not attention to the oath but the words spoken afterward.

Obama has stated that life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a collective pursuit and not an individual one. He has also stated that the oath and constitution is subject to interpretation.

Thanks for tracking down the actual words...and I think this is what confused you?

"that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action."

He did not say that freedoms are collective...He said that preserving those individual freedoms requires collective action...and that is hard to dispute...It is the premise behind everything from the civil rights movement to the United States Military.

Through it all, we have never relinquished our skepticism of central authority, nor have we succumbed to the fiction that all society’s ills can be cured through government alone.

Our celebration of initiative and enterprise; our insistence on hard work and personal responsibility, are constants in our character.

But we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action. For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

I get the feeling that it frustrates some folks of a certain unmovable idealogy and companion portrait of the President when his words do not align with that false narrative...thus we end up with misconstrued remarks, out of context characterizations etc.

His statement above both affirms "individual" rights and "slepticism of government"...both of which would have been effusely praised if spoken by someone with an (R) beside thier name.

Are not the Pro-Gun raliies around this country precise examples of collective action in defense of individual liberties? At least from the perspective of the Pro-Gun protestors?

Originally posted by txinfidel
He has also stated that the oath and constitution is subject to interpretation.

Can you provide a source where he says the oath is subject to interpretation? Thanks.

The Constitution IS subject to interpretation. It happens all the time. Various people interpret it different ways. That's why we have all these analyses by lawyers, politicians, and regular people.

The thing about Lincon is that he wasnt the author of the issues tearing at the nation back then. We hear some talk about states rights going on now and the knee jerk for many is the Civil War era. Its their limited perspective and interpretation of history.

Now we have to drag out the ghost of Lincon because the nation is factious. Americans have always been factious and state have always had rights. Draging out Lincon now is more like some used car lot calling itself Lincon Motors with a likeness of old Abe walking back to give someone back their penny.

reply to post by Indigo5


Here, Ill highlight that part for you in bold.

Through it all, we have never relinquished our skepticism of central authority, nor have we succumbed to the fiction that all society’s ills can be cured through government alone.

Our celebration of initiative and enterprise; our insistence on hard work and personal responsibility, are constants in our character.

But we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action. For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias.

Do you see the fallacy in your argument? Or should I spell it out for you?
We already have a common set of principals and guidelines that do not change over time and as history teaches us. It is not up for debate, it is the law of the land.

The trouble with creating a this document in the first place, was creating the document called the constitution the foundation in which this republic was built. Not because people will agree on all things, but because the document itself was something that all could find common ground and agree upon. It is a timeless document, time does not make any part of it any less relevant today.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

The Constitution IS subject to interpretation. It happens all the time. Various people interpret it different ways. That's why we have all these analyses by lawyers, politicians, and regular people.

This deserves no response from me. The constitution as agreed upon and signed by our founding fathers is not up for debate and never has been. Without it, we have no nation, no common ground, no honor and no principals. Thank you.

But here it is for s+g's

My fellow Americans, the oath I have sworn before you today, like the one recited by others who serve in this Capitol, was an oath to God and country, not party or faction – and we must faithfully execute that pledge during the duration of our service. But the words I spoke today are not so different from the oath that is taken each time a soldier signs up for duty, or an immigrant realizes her dream. My oath is not so different from the pledge we all make to the flag that waves above and that fills our hearts with pride.
They are the words of citizens, and they represent our greatest hope.
You and I, as citizens, have the power to set this country’s course.
You and I, as citizens, have the obligation to shape the debates of our time – not only with the votes we cast, but with the voices we lift in defense of our most ancient values and enduring ideals.

Again it is an oath, not a debate. Just thought I would clear that up for you.

Your welcome.

Originally posted by txinfidel
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Here, Ill highlight that part for you in bold.

Through it all, we have never relinquished our skepticism of central authority, nor have we succumbed to the fiction that all society’s ills can be cured through government alone.

Our celebration of initiative and enterprise; our insistence on hard work and personal responsibility, are constants in our character.

But we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action. For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias.

Do you see the fallacy in your argument? Or should I spell it out for you?

Evidently we differ on reading comprehension...so, yes, please spell it out.

Originally posted by txinfidel
We already have a common set of principals and guidelines that do not change over time and as history teaches us. It is not up for debate, it is the law of the land.

And?....Confused...again, read what he said

that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.

"fidelity to our founding principles"...fidelity means loyalty. See...he is agreeing with what you are saying when you say

Originally posted by txinfidel
We already have a common set of principals and guidelines that do not change over time

"New responses" "New Challenges"....he clearly says in that statement that in order to preserve out founding principles, we must continually as a nation decide what those principles speak to.

Internet forums = Free Speech...despite the founders not having internet.

Understand?

Originally posted by txinfidel
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

The Constitution IS subject to interpretation. It happens all the time. Various people interpret it different ways. That's why we have all these analyses by lawyers, politicians, and regular people.

This deserves no response from me. The constitution as agreed upon and signed by our founding fathers is not up for debate and never has been. Without it, we have no nation, no common ground, no honor and no principals. Thank you.

Bottom line? You are conflating "intent" (Principles) with "interpretation" of those same principles.

The principles of the constitution?...not up for debate.

The interpretation? If those were not up for debate...then the Internet is not "speech', "arms" include thermo-nuclear weapons etc. etc. We apply the "principles" in the constitution all the time to modern day society...so that those "principles' endure...lest "arms" in the 2nd amendment by limited to just Muskets...or accepted to include Nuclear Weapons.

reply to post by Indigo5


So the man that took an oath to defend the constitution which reads the 2nd amendment for one, who then attacked the 2nd amendment, made a great speech after taking another oath to defend the constitution after attacking the 2nd amendment. He is just trying to justify his actions as an oath breaker who will in turn attack the second amendment again after taking yet another oath. And by taking collective action, he means meeting those Americans who resist by greater or equal force.

Spare me your of your bs.