3 ms·

Actually, it is the role of law enforcement: https://www2.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2009/september2009/oath.htm https://www2.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2009/septem

Actually, it is the role of law enforcement: https://www2.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2009/september2009/oath.htm https://www2.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2009/september2009/oat... I [name] 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.

icebraining 11y ago
Where does interpretation enter into that oath?
- jkestner 11y ago
  You can't read words without interpreting them. Technology will always be moving faster than courts can define how the law applies, and thus interpretation is a part of law enforcement's daily job.
  - newjersey 11y ago
    > Technology will always be moving faster than courts can define how the law applies, and thus interpretation is a part of law enforcement's daily job. Imagine using the same logic in gun control. Imagine there were no laws against certain kinds of ammunition and law enforcement just went around saying certain guns are illegal just because what was in the officer's coffee that morning. People always throw around the phrase "we're a constitutional republic, not a democracy" when I say the Connecticut compromise ought to be scrapped but the same people are for a massive overreach by law enforcement. Imagine someone shot and killed you in the street for no reason and said they thought it was their right. Would that absolve them? No. Neither should this kind of overreach by the FBI be legal.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Where does interpretation enter into that oath? In order to support and defend the Constitution, you must have an understanding of what it means (unless you interpret the oath -- itself part of the Constitution -- to mean physical support and defense of the physical document.) To have an understanding, you must interpret. The oath, therefore, requires interpretation. (Now, the Constitution itself gives the judiciary the role of resolving controversies arising under the Constitution, which includes disputes arising from differing interpretations. But people -- including executive officers -- have to have interpretations before they can get to the point where such a dispute arises for the courts to settle.)
- Zigurd 11y ago
  It doesn't. If anything it implies "back off and behave." "Defend" doesn't generally mean "probe it for loopholes."
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    There is the situation where defending the Constitutional order against a clear threat most effectively demands actions that are questionable impinge on some rule of the Constitution, in that case, its at least arguable that working right up to the limit -- and perhaps even testing the limit -- is demanded. Clearly, gratuitously testing the limits of the Constitution is not demanded by the oath, but I don't think that that's the claim Comey was making. (Note, I'm not saying that I agree that this is a case where a rational expectation of the value of breaking into the phone in question to protecting the U.S. and its Constitutional order does justify testing the limits of law enforcement authority, I'm just pointing out that its not unreasonable to think that there are situations in which upholding the oath might reasonably be seen to require testing the boundaries of Constitutional authority.)
    - Zigurd 11y ago
      I think it's a good thing my doctor doesn't stab me in random places to defend my health. There might be some case where that's good medicine but I'm having a hard time with concrete examples.
    - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
      > There is the situation where defending the Constitutional order against a clear threat most effectively demands actions that are questionable impinge on some rule of the Constitution, in that case, its at least arguable that working right up to the limit -- and perhaps even testing the limit -- is demanded. Which, while technically correct (The Best Kind Of Correct), isn't the sort of thing the FBI runs into very often. Because the FBI is not constitutionally obligated to succeed in apprehending every criminal. If the FBI wanted to embody the principle of letting 10 guilty men go free before convicting one innocent then they would in practice run into a lot fewer prickly constitutional edge cases.

icebraining 11y ago

Where does interpretation enter into that oath?

jkestner 11y ago
You can't read words without interpreting them. Technology will always be moving faster than courts can define how the law applies, and thus interpretation is a part of law enforcement's daily job.
- newjersey 11y ago
  > Technology will always be moving faster than courts can define how the law applies, and thus interpretation is a part of law enforcement's daily job. Imagine using the same logic in gun control. Imagine there were no laws against certain kinds of ammunition and law enforcement just went around saying certain guns are illegal just because what was in the officer's coffee that morning. People always throw around the phrase "we're a constitutional republic, not a democracy" when I say the Connecticut compromise ought to be scrapped but the same people are for a massive overreach by law enforcement. Imagine someone shot and killed you in the street for no reason and said they thought it was their right. Would that absolve them? No. Neither should this kind of overreach by the FBI be legal.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Where does interpretation enter into that oath? In order to support and defend the Constitution, you must have an understanding of what it means (unless you interpret the oath -- itself part of the Constitution -- to mean physical support and defense of the physical document.) To have an understanding, you must interpret. The oath, therefore, requires interpretation. (Now, the Constitution itself gives the judiciary the role of resolving controversies arising under the Constitution, which includes disputes arising from differing interpretations. But people -- including executive officers -- have to have interpretations before they can get to the point where such a dispute arises for the courts to settle.)
Zigurd 11y ago
It doesn't. If anything it implies "back off and behave." "Defend" doesn't generally mean "probe it for loopholes."
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  There is the situation where defending the Constitutional order against a clear threat most effectively demands actions that are questionable impinge on some rule of the Constitution, in that case, its at least arguable that working right up to the limit -- and perhaps even testing the limit -- is demanded. Clearly, gratuitously testing the limits of the Constitution is not demanded by the oath, but I don't think that that's the claim Comey was making. (Note, I'm not saying that I agree that this is a case where a rational expectation of the value of breaking into the phone in question to protecting the U.S. and its Constitutional order does justify testing the limits of law enforcement authority, I'm just pointing out that its not unreasonable to think that there are situations in which upholding the oath might reasonably be seen to require testing the boundaries of Constitutional authority.)
  - Zigurd 11y ago
    I think it's a good thing my doctor doesn't stab me in random places to defend my health. There might be some case where that's good medicine but I'm having a hard time with concrete examples.
  - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
    > There is the situation where defending the Constitutional order against a clear threat most effectively demands actions that are questionable impinge on some rule of the Constitution, in that case, its at least arguable that working right up to the limit -- and perhaps even testing the limit -- is demanded. Which, while technically correct (The Best Kind Of Correct), isn't the sort of thing the FBI runs into very often. Because the FBI is not constitutionally obligated to succeed in apprehending every criminal. If the FBI wanted to embody the principle of letting 10 guilty men go free before convicting one innocent then they would in practice run into a lot fewer prickly constitutional edge cases.