You are giving an organization like a court the ability to censor politicians. They have a political bias. They are going to treat a statement that’s coming from a political enemy as a lie when they are treating a similar statement by a political friend as not a lie.
If you have a 400-page law that pretends to do something about climate change and a politician votes against it because they don’t believe that it actually does something about climate change a court can say that they lied in their campaign promise to vote for actions against climate change.
In a democracy, parliamentarians are supposed to be held to account for their actions as parliamentarians by voters who can evaluate their actions and not by courts.
Even if you don’t believe that voters should not have the responsibility to evaluate parliamentarians but that courts should have that responsibility, the people at the Second Continental Convention believed that it’s the responsibility of voters.
Hmm… I suppose we’re looking at the “preferred agent” as different members: I think of the People as the privileged agents, with statesmen taking an oath to those People, which seems to be a breach of their oath of office if they intentionally misrepresent their goals in office. You favor the statesmen, even when the evidence of history is that voters are repeatedly fooled because there is no reliable account of politicians’ actions?
[Also, the existence of Representative government, by the way, is the admission that each voter not be burdened with every task of verification, and this seems to be another instance of that.]
That’s not how the political system of the United States is set up. The oath of office for the president is:
“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.”
Congressmen swear:
“I 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.”
The oath is toward the constitution and not toward citizens. There are reasons for why the oath is written the way it is and why the founders did not want an oath that’s about serving the citizens.
You favor the statesmen, even when the evidence of history is that voters are repeatedly fooled because there is no reliable account of politicians’ actions?
I don’t think in terms of statemen vs. voters.
Also, the existence of Representative government, by the way, is the admission that each voter not be burdened with every task of verification
Yes, you can read a newspaper and outsource the task of verifying to them. That’s why it’s the fourth estate.
Thank you for your detailed critique! I’m glad to hear firm arguments—we are two halves of progress, Speculator and Skeptic. Isn’t the Constitution the means by which the Government inherits the Will of the People? Such that, though the oath is directly to the Constitution, it is ultimately to the People? The founders didn’t want a direct link, due to the whims of the majority and the moment… yet, we are not slaves to our own Constitution, instead its recipient?
You are giving an organization like a court the ability to censor politicians. They have a political bias. They are going to treat a statement that’s coming from a political enemy as a lie when they are treating a similar statement by a political friend as not a lie.
If you have a 400-page law that pretends to do something about climate change and a politician votes against it because they don’t believe that it actually does something about climate change a court can say that they lied in their campaign promise to vote for actions against climate change.
In a democracy, parliamentarians are supposed to be held to account for their actions as parliamentarians by voters who can evaluate their actions and not by courts.
Even if you don’t believe that voters should not have the responsibility to evaluate parliamentarians but that courts should have that responsibility, the people at the Second Continental Convention believed that it’s the responsibility of voters.
Hmm… I suppose we’re looking at the “preferred agent” as different members: I think of the People as the privileged agents, with statesmen taking an oath to those People, which seems to be a breach of their oath of office if they intentionally misrepresent their goals in office. You favor the statesmen, even when the evidence of history is that voters are repeatedly fooled because there is no reliable account of politicians’ actions?
[Also, the existence of Representative government, by the way, is the admission that each voter not be burdened with every task of verification, and this seems to be another instance of that.]
That’s not how the political system of the United States is set up. The oath of office for the president is:
“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.”
Congressmen swear:
“I 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.”
The oath is toward the constitution and not toward citizens. There are reasons for why the oath is written the way it is and why the founders did not want an oath that’s about serving the citizens.
I don’t think in terms of statemen vs. voters.
Yes, you can read a newspaper and outsource the task of verifying to them. That’s why it’s the fourth estate.
Thank you for your detailed critique! I’m glad to hear firm arguments—we are two halves of progress, Speculator and Skeptic. Isn’t the Constitution the means by which the Government inherits the Will of the People? Such that, though the oath is directly to the Constitution, it is ultimately to the People? The founders didn’t want a direct link, due to the whims of the majority and the moment… yet, we are not slaves to our own Constitution, instead its recipient?