palani
3rd December 2011, 05:04 PM
I have covered this before but it has been a year or more.
A politician gets elected. He takes office. Before doing so he is required to verbally confirm an oath. He is to provide a bond. His election is certified (that he is the "winner"). On the back of this election certificate he places his oath and signs it in front of some state or federal official appointed to take these oaths.
Now the interesting part. Who is the oath directed to? When considering this how about we first consider who the oath is NOT directed to? This group would be called "the voter". That is to say, anyone who cast a ballot in the election, whether for or against this office holder, cannot use his oath to force him to obey it. This is because these people (for or against) agreed to go along with the will of the majority and be represented by the election winner.
Another group who has no say in the oath of office are foreigners, non-domestic, green card holders, tourists and the like. This seems to be apparent. Anyone who is not in the body politic can make no claim on the incumbent. This includes foreign entities such as federations, United Nations or sovereign countries who have no treaties.
So what does that leave?
Well, how about people in the body politic who have not registered and have not voted? They had no say at all in the election and certainly did not agree to go along with the will of the majority. By their silence they did agree to the election and by their silence they agreed to the result until some trespass occurs that is covered by the office holders oath.
Also, how about foreign nations who have treaties that they expect to be mutually upheld? They really don't care who is in office (or shouldn't care anyway). All they care about is that the other side honors the treaty to the letter. The oath is all about agreeing to do what the constitution (and treaties covered by that constitution) say is required and what is forbidden. Even so if there is a breach of a treaty a foreign country is likely not to take the matter up with an individual office holder by referring to his oath so much as referring to his duty established by the treaty. When a breach occurs the matter becomes subject for an international court or a declaration of war.
The point? That if you vote you assign your authority to the one elected and you might as well go to sleep for the next 4 years. You have no further say in how national matters and affairs are conducted. Dispute this statement? Design an experiment to test these concepts and see how successful you are. If you vote you are domestic property. You vote the captain you want to be in charge of the ship and it is going where he tells it to go. Want to mutiny? I can see a captain's mast in your future. Walking the plank or hanging from the yard is reserved for top mutineers. But then you volunteered so have no one else to blame if you find yourself in this position.
Enjoy the next election.
I know I will.
A politician gets elected. He takes office. Before doing so he is required to verbally confirm an oath. He is to provide a bond. His election is certified (that he is the "winner"). On the back of this election certificate he places his oath and signs it in front of some state or federal official appointed to take these oaths.
Now the interesting part. Who is the oath directed to? When considering this how about we first consider who the oath is NOT directed to? This group would be called "the voter". That is to say, anyone who cast a ballot in the election, whether for or against this office holder, cannot use his oath to force him to obey it. This is because these people (for or against) agreed to go along with the will of the majority and be represented by the election winner.
Another group who has no say in the oath of office are foreigners, non-domestic, green card holders, tourists and the like. This seems to be apparent. Anyone who is not in the body politic can make no claim on the incumbent. This includes foreign entities such as federations, United Nations or sovereign countries who have no treaties.
So what does that leave?
Well, how about people in the body politic who have not registered and have not voted? They had no say at all in the election and certainly did not agree to go along with the will of the majority. By their silence they did agree to the election and by their silence they agreed to the result until some trespass occurs that is covered by the office holders oath.
Also, how about foreign nations who have treaties that they expect to be mutually upheld? They really don't care who is in office (or shouldn't care anyway). All they care about is that the other side honors the treaty to the letter. The oath is all about agreeing to do what the constitution (and treaties covered by that constitution) say is required and what is forbidden. Even so if there is a breach of a treaty a foreign country is likely not to take the matter up with an individual office holder by referring to his oath so much as referring to his duty established by the treaty. When a breach occurs the matter becomes subject for an international court or a declaration of war.
The point? That if you vote you assign your authority to the one elected and you might as well go to sleep for the next 4 years. You have no further say in how national matters and affairs are conducted. Dispute this statement? Design an experiment to test these concepts and see how successful you are. If you vote you are domestic property. You vote the captain you want to be in charge of the ship and it is going where he tells it to go. Want to mutiny? I can see a captain's mast in your future. Walking the plank or hanging from the yard is reserved for top mutineers. But then you volunteered so have no one else to blame if you find yourself in this position.
Enjoy the next election.
I know I will.