4 ms·
"he has violated his oath of office, to protect and defend the United States Constitution." And there it is, plainly stated.
by a_a_r_o_n 15y ago
"he has violated his oath of office, to protect and defend the United States Constitution."
And there it is, plainly stated.
- nextparadigms 15y agoI find it odd that there is no clear "punishment" for voting a law that is clearly unconstitutional. I wouldn't mind if you had to wait for the decision of the Supreme Court if it's unconstitutional or not first, but what then? They still won't suffer any consequence, other than (maybe) stopping them from getting re-elected, if the public even finds out about that. The media clearly doesn't want to talk about this, so the public would have to find out on its own, and then vote them out. http://www.businessinsider.com/whys-the-media-shafting-ron-paul-and-ignoring-ndaa-and-sopa-dangers-2011-12 http://www.businessinsider.com/whys-the-media-shafting-ron-p...
- nknight 15y agoWho decides what's "clear"? And what would you have the punishment be, exactly? And who gets to decide which of the minimum 269 individuals had the necessary mens rea? And do you really want to criminalize people having different opinions on what is Constitutional? Are you prepared to start punishing voters who approve state referendums that are held unconstitutional? Why not?
- noarchy 15y agoThe ideal, of course, is that the voters will remove offending Senators via the ballot box. This is a problem when said ballot is years away. There should, imo, be procedures for recall for all elected officials.