Oath of Office is Not a Trivial Inconvenience

Quote of the Day

The Courts will indeed decide this issue, and in the meantime things like an Oath of Office appear to be nothing more than a trivial inconvenience, as it certainly is not adhered to as a rule here in Vermont.

Chris Bradley
President Vermont’s Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs
June 2, 2023
Vermont governor doubted gun control bill was constitutional, but he just allowed it to take effect

It certainly isn’t limited to Vermont. I would claim that 99.9% of all politicians in the country give it less thought than the Vermont governor. And it is not a trivial inconvenience to any of them. They do not even consider it.

There needs to a be a multitude of trials.


3 thoughts on “Oath of Office is Not a Trivial Inconvenience

  1. Neil Smith pointed out (in “Lever Action”, perhaps, or in “Hope”?) that politicians and bureaucrats view the Constitution as an inconvenient collection of rules to be worked around, rather than as the Supreme Law of the Land which it is.

  2. I’ve said this before, but the Founding Fathers erred in (at least) one significant way – they did not include an enforcement mechanism for the Constitution short of the Second Amendment. Our host often mentions “their trials” but that, increasingly, appears rather fanciful, and there’s little evidence that, whenever such a trial might be convened, there’s any solid hope that the proceedings would, in any way, be effective.

    While I’m sure politicians would have devoted no small effort to finding a way around it, and hairs would be split down to below infinity, documented proof that Action X, Activity Y or authorship/passage of Law Z, was in violation of the Constitution producing instantaneous removal from office and prohibition from any future office, would have been worthwhile….assuming there was a mechanism for enforcing such removal.

    Someone, or more likely, lots of someones, would have had to line up wth the proverbial pitchforks and torches to ensure removal from office for the violator. In past times, way back when, public condemnation actually had some weight; today it’s disregarded rather severely, constituting no impediment whatsoever to fame and fortune.

    Sarah Hoyt’s cry of a la lanterne seems the only solution, except that there is, today, a notable dearth of supporters for the practice. It would be nice to have an intermediate solution somewhere between a mild “harrumph” and armed uprising to command respect for the sanctity of the Republic.

  3. The oath of office is nothing to the oath they took to bring about the complete and total permanent ruination of the United States on every level and the destruction of its people including the extermination of the entire population of the United States states that would dare to oppose them in fulfilling that oath.

    Also the oath of office is done on a bible. To them that is a major point of contention given their visceral hatred of Christianity and hatred of god. I’m not even religious and the things you see, read and watch from them is vile and disgusting.

Comments are closed.