Does the pledge to Norquist trump a congressperson's oath?

[marias23]

Why does the pledge to Grover Norquist seem to take precedence over a congressperson's oath of office? Don't our Senators and Representatives swear to uphold the constitution not some private document.

While the words in common parlance are used interchangeably it seems to me that an oath (particularly when taken on a bible) is like what a lawyer would call a 'contract with consideration,(that is both sides give something) while a pledge is more like a promise without consideration (that is, one sided).

Thusly, I think it could be argued that an oath trumps a pledge.

I think law suits should be brought against every one of them who says they can't change their vote because they signed an unenforceable document. They will probably loose, but these folks will have to explain themselves

Anyone like to pledge to research this?

From Wikipedia
An oath (from Anglo-Saxon āð, also called plight) is either a statement of fact or a promise calling upon something or someone that the oath maker considers sacred, usually God, as a witness to the binding nature of the promise or the truth of the statement of fact. To swear is to take an oath, to make a solemn vow. Those who conscientiously object to making an oath will often make an affirmation instead.

A promise is a commitment by someone to do or not do something.

[Tippy]

1. Oath over pledge everytime.....

[opihimoimoi]

2. The GOPers Brains Are up their ASSES.....They would see this Nation die before they sell out Grover

But THey will Pay for this STUPIDNESS

[PADemD]

3. The oath of office is to the Constitution and to represent their constituants.

The pledge is to someone who does not live in their district.

[rfranklin]

4. The question encapsulates the struggle for power in the USA...

supposedly you have voters and constituents who the people in Congress are answerable to. However, they are in thrall to the money of corporate chieftains and the ultra wealthy who embody the Springsteen line, "Rich man wants to be king." Those people believe that their money entitles them to rule. Having it proves that they are superior to the rest of mankind. They subscribe to the old idea of "divine right." Eventually, the masses of people, the other 99% will have to reassert control or be content with living in a society modeled after medieval Europe.

[no_hypocrisy]

5. If it's unconstitutional for a representative/Senator to make a religious oath

that supercedes the oath to the Constitution, then Norquist's oath should be challenged in court. I don't see how "the Oath" can be equated with part of a republican's Oath of Office by not raising taxes as doing so is part of protecting the welfare of his/her constituents.

[onenote]

18. I'm not sure what you're talking about

What does it mean to say that its "unconstitutional" for an elected official to make a religious oath that supersedes the Constitution. Is it unconstitutional for an elected official to subscribe to the tenets of a pacifist religious order that renounces war? After all the Constitution gives the Congress the right to declare war.

The answer is that of course its not. And its not unconstitutional for an elected official to be a member of a religious order that opposes abortion even though abortion is a constitutional right.

And its certainly not unconstitutional for a member of Congress to make a campaign pledge to support or oppose a particular legislative action or policy, particularly where there is no religious component to the pledge.

We'd be better off working to elect Democrats who will pledge to support the positions we support than whine about repubs who pledge to support positions we don't.

[Turbineguy]

6. Yes.

But only if you are a republican.

On the other hand they should probably be registered as foreign agents.

[JoePhilly]

7. I wonder how many Dems have signed it?

I often hear how the Dems are no different than the Republicans.

So I have to believe that lots of Dems have signed on too.

But I can't find any.

[era veteran]

8. I believe 3

My buedog Chandler d KY6th
Robert Andrews NJ

Ben Nelson NE

Of course we gave you/us Mitchie and Rand

sorry about that , we keep trying

[Proud Liberal Dem]

11. If you can't find any

that probably means that none have signed it. :shrug:

[doc03]

12. Signers of the Grover Norquist pledge (3 Dems)

http://s3.amazonaws.com/atrfiles/files/files/070711-federalpledgesigners.pdf


I see three (D)s Robert Andrews NJ, Ben Chandler KY and Ben Nelson (Neb).

[JoePhilly]

13. That's a great reference!!!

[doc03]

9. Why can't the Democrats sign a pledge to the AARP that they

will never ever under any circumstances cut SS, Medicare and Medicaid? So there we have total gridlock, just disband Congress and send them home. I saw the Grover Norquist interview on 60 minutes and both Grover Norquist and the a--holes that signed his pledge pretty much admitted his pledge holds precedence over their oath of office.

[Ineeda]

10. Other than a marriage oath or pledge,

which we know is sacrosanct, :sarcasm: , any oath or pledge to an individual is invalid in a democracy. I don't think even the Secret Service takes an oath to protect any specific president, rather to the person who holds the office, though I could be wrong on this.

[onenote]

14. No need to research it

On the one hand you have an "oath" to uphold the Constitution that creates no binding legal obligation as to a legislator's vote on any particular piece of legislation. It doesn't violate any Constitutional duty to support a tax increase or to oppose one.

On the other hand, you have a "pledge" not to vote for tax increases that is not legally binding. Violating the pledge is of no effect legally.

So, no legal obligations -- no lawsuit.

[marlakay]

15. I would agree but...

Then I learned today the dems took a pledge but not in writing not to mess with SS.

[The Wizard]

16. Traitors (NT)

[Puzzler]

17. Yes... for the GOP anyway.

[Tom Ripley]

19. Norquist knows their dirty little secrets (just another way he is like J Edgar Hoover)

[ellisonz]

20. Cowards. n/t