10 affirmations for those holding public office

[johnwilliamson062]

We covered a similar set of rules offered up by the Oath Keepers not too long ago, and I was wondering what everyone thought about this take, meant for those holding public office not veterans.
Does anyone see anything inherently illegal?
http://pledge.tenthamendmentcenter.c...-state-pledge/

[Glenn E. Meyer]

What do you think? You are supposed to give a take to avoid the drive-by oath sworn by moderators.

[Dragon55]

6. The “Interstate Commerce Clause” in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, does not permit Congress to regulate matters that merely affect commerce among the States. It only permits Congress to regulate trade among the States.

This one confuses me as trade and commerce are essentially the same thing. The definitions of each use the other in their definition. (Dern that sentence is pretty darn confusing too huh?)

[Brian Pfleuger]

This one confuses me as trade and commerce are essentially the same thing. The definitions of each use the other in their definition. (Dern that sentence is pretty darn confusing too huh?)

I agree.

Other than that, it should be the new oath of office as far as I'm concerned.

[johnwilliamson062]

I generally like the idea. I think I would be more likely to vote for a candidate who took this oath than one who did not.

I agree that trade and commerce are pretty much synonymous.

I was hoping some of the naysayers would show up and punch some holes in the groups message to give me something to think about.

[Al Norris]

John, it's a holiday weekend. I'm sure, if this threads survives until Sunday night, that a few others may chime in.

Having said that, I would remind everyone that a State or Federal legislator has more on their plates than what their constituents want. They have the (dubious) responsibility to conduct their affairs as would be best for their State or Country, as a whole.

I'd settle for that, if we could somehow get rid of the power-mongering that really goes on.

[JAZ]

"In a July report titled ”Return of the Militias,“ the Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center singled out Oath Keepers as ”a particularly worrisome example of the Patriot revival.“

"The Patriot movement, so named because its adherents believe the federal government has stepped on the constitutional ideals of the American Revolution, gained traction in the 1990s and has been closely linked to anti-government militia and white supremacist movements.

The movement is blamed for spawning Timothy McVeigh, who bombed a federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, killing 168 people.

”I’m not accusing Stewart Rhodes or any member of his group of being Timothy McVeigh or a future Timothy McVeigh,“ law center spokesman Mark Potok said. ”But these kinds ofconspiracy theories are what drive a small number of people to criminal violence. ... What’s troubling about Oath Keepers is the idea that men and women armed and ordered to protect the public in this country are clearly being drawn into a world of false conspiracy theory.“
- Just thought I would throw this into the fire. It should keep the thread going for awhile.

[johnwilliamson062]

I would like to keep this topic only indirectly linked to the oathkeepers as much as possible. We already covered the credibility/legality/whatever of that organization pretty well in another thread only about a month ago.
Comparing specific parts of either organizations oath/pledge would seem on topic to me.

[alloy]

9. When Congress enacts laws and regulations that are not made in Pursuance of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, the People are not bound to obey them.

Nifty, but kind of simplistic isn't it?

[Brian Pfleuger]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Originally Posted by Alloy

Nifty, but kind of simplistic isn't it?

[alloy]

9: If a proposed law is unconstitional, Congress shall not vote on it or pass it off on a regulatory agency. Enough already, cause if the folks aren't obligated to obey it...what's the point?

I like my version better.

[AirForceShooter]

Forget about them taking an oath.
Were their votes in accord with the 10 points?

AFS

[CUBAN REDNECK]

Any politician will pledge to get your vote. Now implementation is the real question.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

John,

The 10 affirmations seem a good bit useless to me. Just more talk and a lot of it just feel good sounding bilge. They keep saying things like the politician must "uphold the COTUS". What a bunch of fluff. Look, the COTUS means what the SCOTUS and the rule of law says it means and NOT what individuals THINK it means. I mean really, think about it, we don't agree on this forum about what it means so by taking some silly oath we all now think the same?

This is real simple; 1) Watch what politicians DO, their votes are all a matter of public record. 2) If you like what they DO, then VOTE for them and contribute money to their campaign 3) If you don't like what they DO, recall them, VOTE against them and contribute money to the campaign of their opponent 4) Run against them! 5) If all else fails, take it to COURT like Mr. Heller did and see if the court will go along with you.

These dopey Oath Keepers and this group all have two things in common;

First, they are fear mongers.

Second, they ALL ASK FOR MONEY!!!!

FOLLOW THE MONEY! Let us not be rubes taken in by those who wish to exploit us for moola.

How about that?

BTW, I had a great Thanksgiving with my son who came home to visit and we went shooting!

[johnwilliamson062]

1) Watch what politicians DO, their votes are all a matter of public record

But what if they are not an incumbent?
I know I don't like Voinovich, what I don't know is what to think about whoever runs for his vacant spot in 2010. Maybe they will be a present state senator, but maybe not. Maybe they will be a Mayor or County commissioner or something where their voting/actions are not as available and less relevant. If that person made this pledge it would increase the chances I would vote for them and I would evaluate their performance over time.


This is a VERY small part of the tenth amendment foundations overall body of work.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I think what many people think is:

Watch my lips, I swear to uphold - blah, blah.

I will wax psychological for a second. Oaths like this appeal to a particular stage of moral development that thinks actions can be locked in stone by appealing to some structured rule set - be it religious, law and order or an oath. Thus, they think that by swearing, it will be done that way.

Here's a hint - this is probably a 'towards the right proclamation'. Check out recently how many political folks in that mind set have been found dropping their pants in the wrong place - if you get my drift. They hike the Applachian trail and dance under the restroom stall walls. All of these swore some kind of oath (to their spouses, perhaps). Half the populace supposedly has cheated on their marriage vows.

So, oaths are worth spit as real predicters of behavior. Esp. from politicians.

It is the need for structure from the person who thinks that someone will follow this oath that makes it attractive. If only folks followed their oath, the world would be righteous again. Not going to happen. Behavior is more complex.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by Glenn E Meyer

So, oaths are worth spit as real predicters of behavior. Esp. from politicians.

It is the need for structure from the person who thinks that someone will follow this oath that makes it attractive. If only folks followed their oath, the world would be righteous again. Not going to happen. Behavior is more complex.

Indisputably true. However, an "oath", much like a contract, is helpful for setting a standard of behavior, providing a line in that sand, clarity of intent, etc. etc.

Without an oath of SOME kind, where would we be?

"Oh.... I wasn't supposed to have sex with other women after we got married?... I don't remember that coming up...."

or

"forsaking all others, so long as we both shall live"

The behavior may not change but it sure makes justification difficult.

[johnwilliamson062]

Indisputably true. However, an "oath", much like a contract, is helpful for setting a standard of behavior, providing a line in that sand, clarity of intent, etc. etc.

I am looking more for an acknowledgment that they see the standard as being similar to mine than a wish for absolute adherence.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062

But what if they are not an incumbent?

Try this link: http://www.nrapvf.org/

enter your NRA member number (shame on you if you are not one) and they will rate the candidates for you. They send questionaires to candidates and rate them based on their answers. If the candidates do as they say they will regarding the 2A REGARDLESS of their party the NRA grades and endorses them. Works pretty well I think.

Originally Posted by peetzakilla

Without an oath of SOME kind, where would we be?

The one they already took is sufficient to convict them of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

It is the need for structure from the person who thinks that someone will follow this oath that makes it attractive. If only folks followed their oath, the world would be righteous again. Not going to happen. Behavior is more complex.

Of course you are right Glenn but Oath Keepers and this other group; WANT YOUR MONEY!!!! It's the money Lebowski! So what effect these silly oaths have is not important. Your VISA number is.

Yeah I know the NRA wants it too but they demonstrably do something with it. These cats just take it and scare you.

[johnwilliamson062]

I don't think the NRA is running any less of a scare show than the Tenth amendment foundation. What if I don't vote on one issue?

"they demonstrably do something with it."
I have been utterly unimpressed by the NRA. Considering the amount of money and one issue voters they wield they have been outperformed by a number of other groups with far worse facts to back them up. The NRA is MASSIVE lobbying organization with piles of voter and piles of statistics to back them up and they STILL can't get the job done. I have no doubt that if JPFO had anywhere close to the resources the NRA does we would be in a much better position. Of course, then all the redneck gun owners would have to send money to a JEWISH organization. OH MY!!!

[Glenn E. Meyer]

It is an empirical question that other groups have been more effective than the NRA on the national level.

State organizations have been locally effective.

However, before one claims that the JFPO or GOA or whomever, is more effective on the legislative front - not the rhetorical front - that must be proven.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

However, before one claims that the JFPO or GOA or whomever, is more effective on the legislative front - not the rhetorical front - that must be proven.

Amen Brother! (pardon the Baptist in me)

All I know is that those who hate gun rights (ie Feinstein, Schumer, et al) sure seem to hate the NRA and talk about it all the time. Pretty good endorsement from your enemies.

I would like someone to prove to me what The Oath Keepers and/or The Tenth Amendment Foundation has done legislatively or otherwise for gun rights.

I bet their founders are making some coin tho'.:barf:

[johnwilliamson062]

They haven't been more effective, rather more efficient. They don't have close to the resources of the NRA so to compare performance would be foolish even if it was possible to seperate each organizations individual effect.

Look at what the Sugarcane, Cuban-American, etc. lobbies have accomplished for themselves at the detriment of this country with far fewer resources.

NRA may be good at setting up shooting standards and safety rules, but they are not efficient lobbiers.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

John, make your case with actual outcomes. We try to keep this on an empirical basis.

You are the one that mentioned a comparison. Many techniques exist for determining organizational efficiency.

Diverting to how the Cuban-American lobby has hurt the USA isn't really relevant.

[johnwilliamson062]

Diverting to how the Cuban-American lobby has hurt the USA isn't really relevant.

Th relevance of that comment is as follows: The Cuban lobby, with far fewer resources than the NRA, has been able to push against the statistics that say the embargo on Cuba hurts the US economy and increases Castros power by exploiting the emotional arguments of Communism. The NRA has all the facts and statistics on their side, far greater resources and hasn't does as well.

How are you going to seperate the accomplishments of the NRA from the other pro RKBA groups when they almost always work together, or at least push in the same direction.