(2 pm. – promoted by ek hornbeck)
I have thought about the following for several years and I still cannot wrap my head around this as legal. If elected to congress, this is the oath one must take: The current oath was enacted in 1884:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
Now I always thought that taking that oath would preclude one from signing a pledge with anyone or any organization that would curtail any of one’s duties in regard to the Constitution. Why then is it permissible to sign the following pledge with Norquist?(2)
Taxpayer Protection Pledge
I,________, pledge to the taxpayers of the ___ district of the state of ___________ and to the American people that I will:
One, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses; and
Two, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.
I think that if an elected official to the Congress or Senate said that oath, then they would be required to uphold the Constitution. Article I, Section 8 states:
The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Currently there are 219 representatives and 39 senators in this 113th Congress and added together make 258. The House and Senate together have 435 officials. The majority of each, 218 and 51, equal 259. The majority in the House is 218. The pledge signers start with a one vote advantage for any bill that attempts to raise any taxes in any form. Raising taxes is dead in the water. What about taxes to replace bridges, schools, fire and police protection, etc. etc. etc.?
Why is this allowed? A professor at Columbia, Robert Thurman, thinks the Grover Pledge as Seditious and treasonous.(1) I wholeheartedly agree. Any pledge to any individual or group that prevents one from upholding one’s oath, especially as serious as being a representative of the people, should not be permitted. One could argue that the Grover Pledge is to the people of his/her district/state and is legal. How can that be? The oath of office comes first and foremost. Any pledge outside the Constitution that contradicts the fulfillment of that oath simply should not be allowed and therefore illegal. That’s what I think.
Now, some have argued that if one did not sign the Grover Pledge, then they would be taking money away from the people that would give them money for campaigns. The more money donors get to keep means the money more they will have to give to the pledge signer. That sounds like quid pro quo to me. I have tried to work this out logically and to no avail, I have yet to understand why this is allowed.
If anyone has any suggestions or thoughts in regard to showing me that this pledge is legal for our elected officials to sign, then please comment. I’m pretty set in my ways on thinking that being, legally correct and morally wrong, is not right. Simply put. Thank you.