Brennan takes oath on draft Constitution—without Bill of Rights

reply to post by tadaman

Agreed.. Show over substance to the end and at all levels by how this shows it.

You know what still pisses me off to think about though?? I even thought about this a bit for logistics and transport as I know the Capital and surrounding area for the non-public subways and stuff. I don't think this could get from point A to point B without being driven.

So what would have happened ..or would we even have been told in the public...if the person driving this from National Archives to the ceremony location had been hit by a drunk driver and saw their car burn in the wreck? We will have lost a priceless and irreplaceable piece of Americana and our cultural heritage because a political appointee wanted a really neat picture.

Isn't this just over the top for juvenile stunts?

Originally posted by Glinda
Symbolism? Oversight? Lack of knowledge of US History? Of an "in your face" to Rand Paul, et al, and to the American people. The psy op of NO Bill of Rights, in the age of the Internet (where conspiracies can run amuk) is chilling. Either it's a warning salvo or they are that dimwitted. In either case the outcome for America isn't pretty....

And the blogger mentioned...I would evacuate the neighborhood if she lives close by..."what's that noise--do you see that in the sky? Is that a dro...."

Glinda, agreed and that is my line of thinking as well, especially when Brennan asks for this copy w/o the BoR, so to me that means its intentionally being used and to show the symbolism of no BoRs.

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by GaucheDroite

 

The fact that Brennan chose the Constitution over a Bible makes you wonder if there's any truth to the claims of him becoming a Muslim convert back in the 90's while he was in Saudi Arabia.

Agreed, I read about that "conversion" the other day and am still not quite sure what to think about it. Either way its still has no BoRs on it and the symbolism of that is what is standing out to me and what stood out to the WH person who told the reporters about it.

reply to post by GaucheDroite

Well what you say ATS?

Well... as long as we are pulling long bows and tying ourselves into insane knots to imply sinister ulterior motives from thin air like this...

You could look at it like this: even though the draft didn't have the Bill of Rights, it did include the Amendment process, so the Bill of Rights are sort of implied by that process. So if he is swearing to uphold only the provisions of what is written on that particular document (he isn't of course, but we are tying knots here, remember?), he is swearing to uphold the implied provisions too, right?.

On the other hand, the odds are very strong that the draft copy of the Constitution that was used was written on hemp paper. Is there a hidden message there? Is he signaling his support for hemp industry reform?

Originally posted by Deetermined
reply to post by GaucheDroite

 

The fact that Brennan chose the Constitution over a Bible makes you wonder if there's any truth to the claims of him becoming a Muslim convert back in the 90's while he was in Saudi Arabia.

That's why I like ATS.

You crack me up.

The amendment process is written right into the text of the Constitution. Acknowledgement of the Constitution means acknoledgement of the Bill of Rights all the same. Non-issue.

Chris Hedges on Gun Rights, Obama's Empire, and Serious Revolt

It is no longer safe to speak one's mind.

"Earnest said Brennan had asked for a document from the National Archives that would demonstrate the U.S. is a nation of laws"

did this part escape you ?

it wasn't a very long paragraph, try reading it

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
"Earnest said Brennan had asked for a document from the National Archives that would demonstrate the U.S. is a nation of laws"

did this part escape you ?

it wasn't a very long paragraph, try reading it

Coming from a "Warrior of the Shire, Eater of The Dead" that is encouraging to know

However, in the real world "Brennan" has taken an oath that not only rejects or simply does not embrace the "Bill Of Rights" but he has sworn his oath to a version of the Constitution that was not ratified by the States, an oath that in effect swears his loyalty to the US Government, which is on a ten acre parcel of property in Washington D.C. (District of Columbia) and is incorporated outside the United States of America.

You will have to excuse me for leaving you to doing your own homework but I did hear you, again.

reply to post by MajorKarma

he has sworn his oath to a version of the Constitution that was not ratified by the States

False. The Constitution was ratified and in effect for about 2 years before the any of the Amendments were ratified.

The Bill of Rights is NOT part of the 'original' Constitution. It is a series of AMENDMENTS to that Constitution.

This discussion is silly.

It is not the document that he puts his hand on that counts - in fact none is necessary - it is the words that comprises the oath that is paramount and those words are to "defend the Constitution..." which means as amended to date. So if he thinks he can deviate from defending the Bill of Rights (First X Amendments) then he is wrong....and so are those who think likewise. Still...it could signal ill intent but I cant read his mind.

reply to post by CosmicCitizen

Perhaps it is more important that his sworn oath was Not on the Bible (altho I did not witness the swearing in) as it sounds like he placed his hand on the old copy of the Constitution and not on the Bible (validation of his oath). Can anyone confirm this??

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by MajorKarma

 

he has sworn his oath to a version of the Constitution that was not ratified by the States

False. The Constitution was ratified and in effect for about 2 years before the any of the Amendments were ratified.

The Bill of Rights is NOT part of the 'original' Constitution. It is a series of AMENDMENTS to that Constitution.

This discussion is silly.

Again, I am really not in the mood to do anyone's homework or give a history lesson but in brief: On December 15, 1791, Virginia became the 10th of 14 states to approve 10 of the 12 amendments, thus giving the Bill of Rights the two-thirds majority of state ratification necessary to make it legal. "Director Brennan was sworn in with his hand on an original draft of the Constitution that had George Washington's personal handwriting and annotations on it, dating from 1787.

The "Federal" Government is a Separate Nation and should be called the United States, Incorporated. This is explained at length here: www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

I am not sure if I am dealing with Counterpro Trolls or just uneducated souls but, this will be my last comment on this thread.

As for Brennan not swearing his oath on the Bible, it is for each to guess for themselves if this is a Godless man.

reply to post by tadaman


High water marks would show where the law of the land starts.

The marks must be very high indeed for we have seen no law of the land (yet) in this day and age.

reply to post by GaucheDroite


my opinion is it is simply funny, funny these complete morons that are in control have a dictatorship going and call it democracy. they have taken away free speech, freedom of assembly, hell freedom of thought unless of course your gay. then your perfect you can protest, bitch, whine, whatever. it's time this country was taken back by honest people not a bunch of rich immature idiots. they control the economy saying it's bad but they control the money for them and their ultra rich friends holding the poor down. when their judgement comes when it's their time I guess you have to pity them. everyone wonders if hitler is in heaven, our government is different then his plan but arguably just as bad.

people need to protest for our country, freedom and rights. God given rights not the nonsense they say we have but don't. unfortunately not enough people have the backbone to stand up for those rights. the ones that do are labelled terrorists and become examples even if they are non violent. which is the way I recommend doing things non violently media and government began the problem take control of the mind controlling media to begin with

reply to post by MajorKarma

Again, I am really not in the mood to do anyone's homework or give a history lesson but in brief: On December 15, 1791, Virginia became the 10th of 14 states to approve 10 of the 12 amendments, thus giving the Bill of Rights the two-thirds majority of state ratification necessary to make it legal.

I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make Major K.

The text of the Constitution was agreed to by the Convention on September 17, 1787. It was approved by the Congress of the Confederation (without amendment to the September 17 version) and submitted to the States for ratification on September 28, 1787. New Hampshire became the ninth (i.e. decisive) State to ratify the new Constitution on June 21, 1788. Congress certified the ratification on September 13, 1788 and the new Government began operation on March 4, 1789.

As you point out, the first ten amendments, collectively known as the Bill of Rights, were ratified in December 1791 - almost three years after the Constitution was ratified and two and a half years after the Government had been operating under the Constitution.

Which is what I said.

So what exactly was the history lesson you were trying to transmit to me? Perhaps you should do your own homework before you commit yourself to teaching people how to suck eggs.

Director Brennan was sworn in with his hand on an original draft of the Constitution that had George Washington's personal handwriting and annotations on it, dating from 1787.

Quite so. Again I ask what is your point. This is the point of the entire thread.

As President of the Constitutional Convention, Washington would have required his own copy of the document they were debating, don't you think? In fact he is known to have several personal copies with his handwritten notes on each.

One such copy is imaged here: George Washington's Annotated Copy of a Draft of the U.S. Constitution. This one is an early version; the Preamble is an early state and Washington has made notes about textual changes made during the debates.

Another copy is imaged here: George Washington's Annotated Copy of the Constitution. This one is closer to the final, the Preamble appears to be the final version, but Washington is still noting changes to the text as sentences are corrected.

There are very likely other draft copies of the Constitution that Washington owned as well. Which of these drafts was used by Brennan is not clear. Brennan's point was to emphasize that the US is a nation of laws and the draft version of the Constitution is symbolic of the determination of the founding generation to establish exactly that and representative of their deliberations to 'form a more perfect union'.

No draft copy of the Constitution could possibly include the Bill of Rights because the BOR didn't exist until 2 years later. Like I said before, this discussion is silly.

In addition, Washington was presented with a copy when he became President, and you might be able to see it when it comes to a Presidential Library near you: George Washington's copy of Constitution with his notes begins U.S. tour

reply to post by rnaa


Been gone this weekend, just now catching up w/ this thread.

Here is how I see it; When swearing an oath to the constitution, that constitution should be the most recent one. Now as for Brennan swearing in with a copy that does not have the BoRs in it, to me this is clearly his/their way of swearing to that copy (not the constitution as it is today, but as it is written in that copy).

Know I now peeps will say, nah, we all know the oath and what he is actually taking an oath too, and I get that line of thinking, but as we know with these "elites" they love symbolism and the like, so why not this?

reply to post by GaucheDroite

Know I now peeps will say, nah, we all know the oath and what he is actually taking an oath too, and I get that line of thinking, but as we know with these "elites" they love symbolism and the like, so why not this?

Because your argument is silly, that's why not.

Some people are complaining that he didn't swear on a Bible. If he had, would that mean that he was swearing to uphold Deuteronomy instead of the Constitution of the United States? Are you seriously suggesting that the text of the chosen document magically transforms the meaning of the words in the oath? Suppose he had used a current version and next year there is another amendment added. Does that mean that he is not bound to uphold that new amendment? I repeat, that is just plain silly.

There is absolutely NO requirement for the oath taker to place his hand on any kind of document what-so-ever. He could have used yesterday's shopping list if that meant something to him. Or maybe a photo of his family. Or he could have put his hand in his pocket.

A document an oath taker uses (if any) should be meaningful to HIM as a symbol of the integrity of his oath. A draft copy of the Constitution may well have more meaning than the final product including all amendments given the right context. His oath is the oath, not the document used to rest the left palm on. Swearing to uphold the Constitution of the US, is swearing to uphold the whole thing, amendments and all.

However, Brennan indicated that he wanted a document that represented the idea the US was a nation of laws. The draft copy (and it is not clear which 'draft' was used) represents the steps that the Framers went through to arrive at our remarkable Constitution, the structure of Government, wording of sentences, and compromises taken. It demonstrates that these were ordinary men doing something extraordinary, not super beings magically inventing the Constitution in final form and imposing it from on high.

I think that is a powerful and inspiring thought, and I commend Mr. Brennan for his wonderful choice.

The CIA doesn't exactly have a great track record of abiding by our laws so I am not surprised Brennan did this. It just makes me wonder if there's some loophole he can get around if something happens and he's embroiled in a scandal.

Kind of like Eric Holder being asked the same " Is drones over US soil constitutional" question over and over again by Ted Cruz and Holder still saying the word "inappropriate" instead of "unconstitutional". When finally backed into a corner he finally said he thought the word "inappropriate" meant "no". Yeah, okay.

I am just suspicious of it all.