Brennan takes oath on draft Constitution—without Bill of Rights

Brennan takes oath on draft Constitution—without Bill of Rights

Source

Hours after CIA Director John Brennan took the oath of office—behind closed doors, far away from the press, perhaps befitting his status as America's top spy—the White House took pains to emphasize the symbolism of the ceremony.

“There's one piece of this that I wanted to note for you,” spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters at their daily briefing. “Director Brennan was sworn in with his hand on an original draft of the Constitution that had George Washington's personal handwriting and annotations on it, dating from 1787.”

Earnest said Brennan had asked for a document from the National Archives that would demonstrate the U.S. is a nation of laws.

"Director Brennan told the president that he made the request to the archives because he wanted to reaffirm his commitment to the rule of law as he took the oath of office as director of the CIA,” Earnest said.

Wow is all I can say... Brennan swears his Oath on a draft constitution without the Bill of Rights on it. Seriously... c'mon now... they ain't even trying to hide anything anymore. Well what you say ATS?

Note: Quoted entire article due to the shortness of it and I couldn't find anything to get rid of to shorten it.

Does it really matter? We're screwed anyways.
Prepare for the worst and hope for the best...
What do you really expect they re-elected Obama?
We can scream all we want it ain't going to change a damn thing.
The constitution has been violated and the supreme court hasn't done a damn thing about it.
Source


Nor has the majority of Americans by voting for less government.
If or when the majority is ready to go their...I'm willing and ready.

I hear so much clamor for 'states rights' though. How much we need to go back to a time where the states had a greater collective power over the federal government. Isn't this closer to that ideal? Back to when we had the articles of confederation declaring the power of the states over the federal government?

The constitution was written as the greatest grasp of federal power this country has ever seen, why complain about this?

Whether it had the Bill of Rights or not is irrelevant in my view. The Oath is the Oath and the wording isn't vague by any stretch.

What bothers me is someone putting their greasy, dirty paws on a 200+ year old document. The pic looks like direct skin to paper. Unthinkable. Just insanely irresponsible. The people who care for old and historic documents must be just feeling sick to see it. Could there be a real fine covering over it perhaps? Some hope that his paws aren't right ON the paper of that document?

Good Lord... Even having it pulled out and exposed that much was just idiocy in my view. Vanity isn't attractive and in the position he's going into? It's SCARY.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


It looks like some sort of protective covering that he has his hand on. Almost like a large cardboard case with a door that you can open to view the document.

A much larger version of the same picture is at NPR.

reply to post by GaucheDroite


A staunch atheist could swear on a stack of bibles that on his immortal soul he will never take another breath. When he does immediately after that he feels no remorse because he never believed in the bible anyway. Much the same way that the majority of our government officials don't believe in the constitution.

reply to post by links234

Thanks. That is a bit clearer and unless the camera exposure was way out of whack to the lighting for bleaching out any writing at all, then that does look like a hard paper or light cardboard cover.

Now I'd just ask what possible purpose was served by moving around a precious item of national history and culture for a photo op? Presidents use some rather rare items for ceremonies too, but Presidents are literally one of a kind too. They earned the right in a way no one under them ever can IMO. It all strikes me as show over substance.

Not a good image to start his job with. Not his....

reply to post by Helious


Oh no doubt, I thought it rather funny/odd/curious that there was no BoR especially right after Rands filibuster about the BoR (more or less).

Umm...the Bill of Rights wasn't adopted until two years after the Constitution had already been Ratified. The Constitution was Ratified in 1787. It wasn't until 1789 that the Bill of Rights (amendments to an existing Constitution) was created. So an original draft of the Constitution couldn't possibly have a Bill of Rights attached.

reply to post by Dustofenese


Then, the question is...."why leave out the Bill of Rights as amended to the US Constitution?". Why use what is considered an incomplete document now?

MG

They're 2 separate documents

reply to post by Dustofenese


No Joke?

But are what they call "Amended" to the 'original'...

c'mon...why exactly were they written? Ahh...to amend what? How about the "Drafted US Consitution" The adoption of the US Constitution was without certain principles and was believed would cause and not PREVENT continued tyranny as the US Constitution was drafted originally.

Hmm...

MG

reply to post by relocator


We have an adversarial legal system, not an Inquisition legal system. So the Supreme Court can't go looking for violations of the Constitution -accused violations must be brought before them in the context of an appealed case from lower courts.

I would rather a swear to an oath upon these thoughts:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security....


Swear to that, true leadership...which the US Constitution is based in a whole, the fears of another King still ripe...hence, the adoption of the Bill of Rights and the States pressures.

How sad to say it is 'two separate documents".

MG

Originally posted by GaucheDroite
Wow is all I can say... Brennan swears his Oath on a draft constitution without the Bill of Rights on it. Seriously... c'mon now... they ain't even trying to hide anything anymore. Well what you say ATS?

I would say they haven't been seriously trying to hide if for a long time. Mostly it's just been their apologists in the civilian world who have been denying that their actions mean anything. TPTB have not said much but they could certainly hide a lot of this if they wanted to.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


yeah they want to "show" that they are all about the law of the land, and "constitution mindedness",

Really if that was the concern they were preoccupied with they would repeal Every piece of legislature passed in the last 10+ years that targets US citizens.

This is all show and no substance.

Honestly it is a little insulting that they think symbolic gestures will hide their true intentions in the information age.

"Right back at ya,....YOU are that stupid to think this is working somehow."

lmfao.. a director of C(aught) I(n the) A(ct) claiming to respect the law.. good joke .. not surprised.. rights .. in amerika you no longer have rights ...

Symbolism? Oversight? Lack of knowledge of US History? Of an "in your face" to Rand Paul, et al, and to the American people. The psy op of NO Bill of Rights, in the age of the Internet (where conspiracies can run amuk) is chilling. Either it's a warning salvo or they are that dimwitted. In either case the outcome for America isn't pretty....

And the blogger mentioned...I would evacuate the neighborhood if she lives close by..."what's that noise--do you see that in the sky? Is that a dro...."

reply to post by GaucheDroite


The fact that Brennan chose the Constitution over a Bible makes you wonder if there's any truth to the claims of him becoming a Muslim convert back in the 90's while he was in Saudi Arabia.