(no subject)

[fallingangels.livejournal.com]

Are president's actually required to know what the constitution says?

Comments

[goumindong.livejournal.com]

They swear an oath to uphold the constitution, so i would say "yes"

But then again, the fourth amendment doesnt give you a right to privacy, and "all people" even when specifically differentiating between people and citizens actualy only means citizens(but does mean corporations), and the United States isnt a "state"(Protip: it is). So you never know what kind of bullshit the pubbies will spew to get around this one.

No, no they arent.

[sarahsaturn.livejournal.com]

“No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God.” - George Bush

Re: No, no they arent.

[ceejayoz.livejournal.com]

That was Bush Sr., if I'm remembering correctly.

[thomasblair.livejournal.com]

No. They are only required to swear an oath to "preserve, protect, and uphold" it.

[dlmorgoth.livejournal.com]

This would imply that they know what they are preserving, protecting, and upholding.

[thomasblair.livejournal.com]

When you got a driver's license, you signed something that indicates that you have read, fully understand, and agree to follow all of the rules of the road, which are contained in volumes the size of dictionaries. Did you read all those?

[dlmorgoth.livejournal.com]

Actually, you agree that you understand what you are told in the driver's manual. And yes, I read all of that.

BTW, the constitution is most definitely small enough to expect one to read--and written in plain enough English to expect anyone with enough sense to take the office to understand.

[thomasblair.livejournal.com]

"Actually, you agree that you understand what you are told in the driver's manual. And yes, I read all of that."

This is untrue, at least in my state. The signature represents understanding of the sections of the Tennessee Code applicable to motor vehicle operation.

As for the second part, I'll just back away. It's a worthless argument.

[fallingangels.livejournal.com]

Well you actually take a test to see if you know the basics. They don't just hand you a license.

[thomasblair.livejournal.com]

Incorrect.

That little facsimile signature on your license designates the bearer as a signatory to the contract that the bearer understands and follows all the rules as given forth in the TN Code.

They do also do a rudimentary driving test.

[fallingangels.livejournal.com]

Well, you have to pass the written test to get that license.

[thomasblair.livejournal.com]

Yes, you do.

[fallingangels.livejournal.com]

So that requires some knowledge of the laws.

[thomasblair.livejournal.com]

If the purpose is to draw a comparison between this an the original poster's message, I won't buy it. We don't have a similar test requirement.

But, yes, there is some knowledge of the rules of the road required to get a license. A summary of those rules are usually printed and distributed for study, but it was made clear to me at a "defensive driving" school that the motorist is responsible for the ENTIRE content of the driving code, not just what's in the booklet.

[madmethod.livejournal.com]

It's the Presidential Oath of Office for god's sake, not a damned driver's license. Anyone who cannot be bothered (or is not able) to read and understand the Constitution has no business being President.

Knowledge of the Constitution doesn't guarantee that the President won't find ways to exploit or circumvent our laws, though. I think that's a far more accurate issue with this President.

[fallingangels.livejournal.com]

Let's just say I was in charge. I would give a copy of the constitution, and other relavant legal documents to each and every child born and every person who is nationalized.

Of course, I remember the lessons in HS about the Constitution and it really didn't cover much at all. Seems something kinda important to teach in US history class.