John Brennan Sworn In Over 1787 Verson Of Constitution With No Bill of Rights

mudwhistle

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Jul 21, 2009
133,119
69,781
John_Brennan-1.jpg



Strange how our new CIA director wasn't sworn in over a Bible or even a current copy of the U.S. Constitution but one that didn't even contain the Bill of Rights.


john-brennan.jpeg



Articles: John Brennan's Spooky Swearing-In

March 26, 2013
John Brennan's Spooky Swearing-In
By Ken Blackwell and Bob Morrison




President Obama's choice to be Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) was approved by the Senate on a vote of 63-34, with thirteen Republicans voting to confirm him. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) created quite a stir with his 13-hour filibuster against the Brennan nomination. Not until he received written assurances from Attorney General Eric Holder that U.S. citizens would not be targeted for killing by drones on U.S. soil would the doughty Kentuckian stand down. Good for him.

John Brennan then proceeded to take the Oath of Office, as administered by Vice President Joe Biden. Director Brennan then did something no other officer has done, something that occasioned its own measure of controversy. Brennan was sworn in on an original copy of the Constitution. It was a very august occasion, to be sure, but it was also a mysterious one.

For the man who will be America's spymaster, it was an odd move for him to stir up trouble. If spies are said to be "spooks," our top spy's action was, well, "spooky."

Civil libertarians left and right were quick to point out that the 1787 Constitution did not include a Bill of Rights. Critics were right to be vigilant , especially when our spymaster has been so intimately associated with choosing targets for drone attacks. The Fifth Amendment says "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." That guarantee should certainly apply to Americans here at home. Similarly, the Fourth Amendment's safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures need to be underscored.

But there was little notice of the fact that the First Amendment provides for No Establishment of Religion. This was conspicuously not a part of the Constitution that Brennan chose to swear to uphold.

The Constitution of 1787 did not afford that guarantee, but it did give all Americans protection from religious tests for office. Thus, even without a Bill of Rights, Article VI, Sec. 3 provides that: "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Here's something else very spooky about the Brennan Oath: How can you take an oath on the Constitution to defend the Constitution? Normally, one takes an oath with his hand on a Bible, or a Koran, on some other Scripture one holds sacred. Taking an oath to defend the Constitution by putting your hand on the Constitution is a skyhook. It is supported by nothing else. It neatly avoids the central question: Is this a valid oath? Can we rely on a person who creates such a stir by the simple act of taking an oath of office?

John Brennan speaks eloquently of "the Majesty of the Hajj." This is the pilgrimage taken by devout Muslims to Mecca. It is a pilgrimage in which no non-Muslim is allowed to take part.

Paging Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) During a series of judicial confirmation hearings nearly a decade ago, Schumer pursued Catholic and Evangelical nominees of President Bush. He wasn't subjecting them to a religious test forbidden by the Constitution, he averred. He was simply probing the nominees' "deeply held personal convictions" which he said might disqualify them from sitting as federal judges.

Where was this constitutional watchdog during the Brennan hearings? The watchdog didn't bark. If any Catholic nominee had spoken of the Majesty of a pilgrimage to Medjugorje, where millions of Catholics believe the Blessed Virgin Mary has appeared, if any Evangelical nominee had spoken of his feeling of spiritual renewal from attending the Washington, D.C. "Stand in the Gap" revival of Promise Keepers in 1997, we might have expected Sen. Schumer to be grilling those candidates under oath about "deeply held personal convictions."

Not this time. Schumer joined other normally alert liberals in confirming Brennan.



Read more: Articles: John Brennan's Spooky Swearing-In
Follow us: [MENTION=20123]American[/MENTION]Thinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
 
I'll put this near the top of my list of stuff to worry about, thanks.

When you're looking down from the clouds after they've turned you into a pile of guts from a Drone strike it'll be too late to worry. :eusa_eh:
 
Oh, no! Not THIS ONE AGAIN!

Regurgitating the same old crap over and over and over again doesn't make it any less crap.
 
When you're looking down from the clouds after they've turned you into a pile of guts from a Drone strike it'll be too late to worry. :eusa_eh:
Yup, worrying about being killed in a drone strike is also high on my list, right above what version of the constitution this guy used.

Thanks for helping me refine my irrational paranoid mental issues list of shit to be worried about dude. I was stupidly worrying about things like how much I had to get done at work on Monday and the small pool of water that keeps forming under the fridge, when damn I should have been focused on whether I'd be hit by a drone strike tomorrow.

I'll head outside to start scanning the skies now...
 

Forum List

Back
Top