The oath of office of the President of the United States is an oath or affirmation required by the United States Constitution before the President begins the execution of the office. The wording is specified in Article Two, Section One, Clause Eight:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States........"

How's that Patriot Act, and Presidential Decree, for the execution of US Citizens without "due process" working for you?

Do we mention "forced Health Care"? How about "unconstitutional" wars?

Oath of office From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An oath of office is an oath or affirmation a person takes before undertaking the duties of an office, usually a position in government or within a religious body, although such oaths are sometimes required of officers of other organizations. Such oaths are often required by the laws of the state, religious body, or other organization before the person may actually exercise the powers of the office or any religious body. It may be administered at an inauguration, coronation, enthronement, or other ceremony connected with the taking up of office itself, or it may be administered privately. In some cases it may be administered privately and then repeated during a public ceremony.

Some oaths of office are a statement of loyalty to a constitution or other legal text or to a person or other office-holder (e.g., an oath to support the constitution of the state, or of loyalty to the king). Under the laws of a state it may be considered treason or a high crime to betray a sworn oath of office.

Are we getting it yet?

The constitution will forever be debated ,amended, and otherwise have its contradictory purposes

like most written work, it has several instances of ambiguous wording that leaves it open to such debate

even the oath 'to the best of my ability' leaves quite a bit of leeway depending upon how we 'prove' what someone elses best was,,,

That government is supposed to be a body of 'checks and balances' (so to speak), has the constitutional exception of allowing congress to 'amend' laws without the president and allowing presidents to issue executive orders without the congress (making the constitution itself not a permanent and unchanging document that is unalterable)

There were those who argued the unconstitutionality of the 14th amendment on the grounds of how it imposed upon 'state rights',,,but sometimes the times call for such adjustments to prior thinking,,,,

"due process?" i assume you meant "due process of law" since we're talking about the constitution. in that regard. the patriot act is law and acting within it is acting with due process of law. "forced health care" has already been ruled unconstitutional.

ANY "LAW" WRITTEN THAT EMPOSES ON "HUMAN RIGHTS" IS A VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION!

What part of "Inalienable Rights" are you NOT getting here?

Time to pick up the Constitution and read it again. If more people did..... we wouldn't have these problems!

actually it's been my tradition for the past quarter century to dedicate forty five minutes or so every fourth of july reading the constitituon from "we the people" through the twenty seventh amendment and nowhere over those decades have i seen the words, "unalienable rights" anywhere in the document. but i certainly do agree that more should read the constitution so as not to confuse documents of law. let me know if you need a link to the parchment in it's entirety as i keep it in my favorites.

and any law written that has not been ruled unconstitution by a federal court remains fulling within the confines of the constitution. what you or i see as constitutional or unconstitutional is of little consequence. if you'd like to peruse some case history i can refer you to several sources including those dealing with the patriot act.

My bad....I freely admit my "passage" is from the Declaration of Independence.

I have been reading both repeatedly a lot lately (for my own understanding and education) and questioning many things I have discovered in my re-education into the different branches of gov't, the supreme court, their power, and things of such nature.

I try not to "misquote" them when possible, but I do get them mixed up at times.

Still, I find no rights given to the President to pass a death sentence on a "citizen" who has not been given due process....THAT IS PLAYING GOD!

Cameras that spy on me from every street corner (and space), GPS trackers you are NOT allowed to remove from electonics (and now they want to put them on EVERYTHING), warrantless search and siezures on or into my PERSONAL property (including hacking your PERSONAL PC and webcam), these are violations of the Constitution and my "right to feel secure..." within them....

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

One apple can spoil the whole barrel! The Patriot Act is a barrel full of rotten apples!

It's working great, we haven't had another large scale terrorist attack like 9/11 since 9/11 and laws like the Patriot act has prevented numerous attacks.

If you really think that this was EVER about security, you need to wake the hell up. It has had nothing to do with safety, and everything to do with control from the beginning, simple as that.

Have you not noticed the ONLY thing that ever changes is that collective noose around our necks? They just keep tightening it with one more intrusion after another. They'll keep doing it too until we make them stop.

many folks confuse the two documents. i've found it best to put the declaration completely out of mind when it comes to the question of how this country was designed to operate. if you'll think about it the DEO is nothing more than a letter to king george with copies to the rest of the planet that his rule no longer stands on american soil. we warred over the issue, we won and now the declaration is nothing more than a historical document having nothing to do with how our government runs.



here's another big mistake people make regarding the constitution. other than habeus corpus, the constitution gives NOBODY any rights. we the people gave certain POWERS to the president, the congress and the judiciary but we gave no RIGHTS whatsoever. show me where the constitution gives you the RIGHT to vote if you can. you won't be able to but it'll be educational for sure.



you keep mentioning "due process" as a right and yet somehow you cannot fathom that "due process of law" has been served with the patriot act. in fact it has not been ruled unconstitutional and until it is the patriot act IS law and the president or any agency acting within the scope of the act, [law], is acting with reqired "due process of law". we are not given a RIGHT requiring "probable cause" for the issuance of a warrant. again, you and i were born with that right and the fourth amendment mearly guarantees that particular "inalienable right" SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED as you quoted.

the inalienable rights that we spoke of earlier are not given to us by any government. that in essence is what we told king george in what amounted to our declaration of war to him. we are born with those rights and the only control government can have over them is either to protect CERTAIN INALIENABLE RIGHTS. but no government protects all rights. some are abridged, restricted, denied, etc. you don't have the right to drive without a licence for instance. in saudi arabia a woman does not have the right to drive at all.

our constitution simply protects certain rights and empowers the three branches while at the same time limiting those powers. perhaps you can show some case history where the patriot act has been challenged and ruled unconstitutional or that the president or any of the agencies over which he has control have violated due process of law. i'm all for educating myself as you are and if i missed something as important as this i'm not even the rank amature scholar of the supreme court and the constitution that i fancy myself.