 |
(Illustrative Only)
While some seek to discount
our social contracts
others will continue
to uphold their oaths.
The vast majority try
and do the right thing
and some have no loyalties.
Vote your conscious
and for those who will
uphold our sacred values. |
The Constitution and the oaths connected to it are just as important today as they were at the beginning of our country. These oaths help guide people toward a shared understanding of how we treat one another, how government should function, and what responsibilities we all have within society. When people swear these oaths, they are not simply pledging loyalty to institutions or documents. They are making a commitment to one another and to future generations in order to protect the principles that define who we are as a society.
Merit should not be based only on wealth, popularity, status, or education. It should also be measured by a person’s commitment to the well-being of society as a whole. There are many factors that should be considered in merit and it isn't the connection, politics or identity that should make the difference. In modern democracies, ambition and success are important, but so is responsibility to others and respect for the rule of law. Those we are above the law or circumvent the law to harm others are doing the rest of society a disservice. Checks and balances are needed as believing or not believing in it has a proof in pudding outcome.
We can view the Allegory of the Clan as a hypothetical and philosophical learning example showing how hatred, prejudice, manipulation and corruption can distort a justice system through social influence, financial incentives, and closed-group loyalty. The sick, elderly, kids, vulnerable women and just about anyone can be mistreated when the essential purpose of core laws are discarded. While the vast majority do the right thing and should be applauded some do not and coudn't care less about the harm they have caused others or the bigger questions they raised. The important lesson is that societies can learn from these failures and work to better protect future victims while improving institutions over time. Progress may not erase every injustice, but it can move society in a better direction-the sacrifice. The courts have an obligation to correct when they find wrongdoing and illicit gain.
What makes this learning example significant is that many of the actions involved would violate the very principles protected by constitutional oaths. Violations of human rights, civil rights, freedom of speech, religious liberty, and equal opportunity are unconstitutional. Attempts to silence, exclude, or target people based on identity or belief undermine the values those oaths are meant to defend. Any advantage gained through such actions cannot be considered appropriate. Some can be convinced to undermine shared social contracts with the right hate narrative (the isms) and we have seen this from time to time in history. Checks and balances along with a commitment to improvement can help. That is not possible if we have the wrong type of people in the wrong positions.
This also reminds us that upholding constitutional principles is not always easy. It is often easier to compromise those values when pressure, fear, or personal gain are involved. People do it all the time except sometimes its pretty clear some have dropped their oaths. Still, every person—regardless of position, wealth, or status—shares a responsibility to uphold these principles as faithfully as possible. Without that shared commitment, our institutions become little more than empty structures instead of living systems built on trust, responsibility, and mutual respect. Those who help us think deeper about these issues are preserving the democracy. We learn, change, and get stronger in the fulfillment of our societal purpose. Vote for the best and brightest and not the most connected if you would like to strengthen and shield generational liberties.
*The Allegory of the Clan is meant for learning purposes as a thought experiment so come to whatever conclusion you desire.
-
The article examines what public officials mean when they swear an oath under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution to “support this Constitution.”
-
The authors argue that the constitutional oath binds officials to the same Constitution that has existed since the Founding era.
-
The paper challenges the idea that a completely different “living Constitution” replaced the original Constitution over time.
-
The authors distinguish between constitutional amendments and the creation of an entirely new constitutional system.
-
Historical figures such as Justice Hugo Black, Senator Jacob Howard, and Thomas Cooley emphasized that officials are obligated to follow the Constitution as originally understood.
-
The article explains that constitutional meaning should remain stable unless changed through constitutional amendment procedures established in Article V.
-
The authors present evidence showing that modern officials repeatedly describe themselves as taking the “same oath” as earlier officeholders, including George Washington.
-
The paper notes that Americans commonly refer to the U.S. Constitution as the world’s oldest still-operative written national constitution.
-
Supreme Court Justices frequently speak collectively about “the Constitution,” suggesting a shared and enduring constitutional object across generations.
-
The article argues that disagreement about constitutional interpretation does not mean different groups are following different constitutions.
-
The authors emphasize that the constitutional oath creates both legal and moral obligations for public officials.
-
The paper concludes that constitutional flexibility must be rooted in the original Constitution itself rather than created outside of the constitutional framework.
Bernick, E. D., & Green, C. R. (2023). What is the object of the constitutional oath? Penn State Law Review, 128(1), 1–68. https://www.pennstatelawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/1.-Bernick.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment