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

page: 3
13
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by txinfidel
 

Attacking the Second Amendment is "protecting, preserving and defending the Constitution??" It is Double-double Speak-speak....I wonder how many times he has read George Orwell's 1984?
edit on 21-1-2013 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Some say that clinging on to the sacred Constitution is akin to the religous fundamentalists and extremists, resistant to change.

The Constitution is not the Bible, nor should be taken as so. The Constitution is made by man. However, those laws agreed by the collective did not come out of thin air. Most of them were based upon traditions, logic and insights into the nature of man observed over centuries of civilisation by educated men.

Those man made laws can be changed, BUT ONLY when the time is right, when it had served its purpose.

For example, blacks had been provened to be not different from whites - both pysically and mentally. We all bled the same, and when given the same opportunities, both equally excel in contributions to society. Thus, there was no need to treat them as sub-species, which slave traders and owners often claimed.

Another example are women's rights. They are different, have different functions but mental wise, they are no different from man and when given opportunities, they too equally excel and made huge contributions to society.

Those and may laws can be changed, provided it has the support of the majority, and not based upon screams of the loud vocal minority, or manipulated 'statistics', but upon truth and realities.

For the 2nd amendment, it too can be changed or even removed, PROVIDED, that it had served its purpose. BUT HAD IT?

No. Man has still continued to behave barbarically. Power grabbers still exists, so too greed. And the insane are not treated properly, neglected and often ignored by both their parents and society.

Point is, before removing or 'interpretating' (misinterpretating) constitution laws, best society research properly, study into EVERY angle before doing so, or regrets may be too late.

It is not dogma, unlike the religious fundamentalists whom truly clings on the texts of the Koran, Talmud, or Bible, LITERALLY, and often mis-interpretating them for their own agendas or their own ignorances.

Much of those moral and ethical guidelines found in the Holy Books HAD purposes which are relavant for the peaceful progress and evolution of mankind and often are contextual based. As it was written in an era whereby man was not as educated or had progess as much as this era, much of those guidelines were to help man survive then, such as its dietry laws and rituals.

Today, we had progressed, with an even longer way to go. All rational religious faithfuls should sit down, share and discuss, and find the way to proceed morally and ethically, not by discarding ancient laws, but rather seek for its relevances while not diluting its essence, to interpretate it correctly and progress.

An example would be the ban on alcohol. Our ancestors had seen how dangerous humans became when drunk in excess. Thus the need to ban it, espacially in prophet Muhammad's time, for many of the muslims were ex-pagans who revile in butchery, and were not yet fully instructed on civilisational ways - not to do things in excess.

Should this ban be lifted? Our Messiah drank wine too, while jews still held on to their tradition of banning alcohol. He did it for 2 reasons - waters sources were no longer pure, and only economically viable treated water was wine. And secondly, he believed men of that era were living in civilised states, and as long as wine is not drunk in excess, each should take that responsiblity to not hurt or harm another, regardless if drank water or wine.

Point is - we should not be ruled by dogma, but at the same time, we should not simply discard laws just because they were too 'ancient' to fit our progressive era. Some of such laws do have its purposes, and should not be discarded unless we are sure that those purposes had been achieved and no longer needed.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 07:02 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Of course the oath is open to interpretation.

The only things the President swears to do is to carry out the duties of the office of President, and to protect, defend, and uphold the Constitution of the United States.

"duties of the office of President" is pretty damn vague.





new topics
 
13
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join