Discussion»Statements»Rosie's Corner» The oath the prez of the US of A takes is to "PRESERVE PROTECT DEFEND The Constitution" not the country or its people. WHY?
I gather you don't like the present one, but try to forget whoever is President at the moment, and look at the process.
Doesn't the Constitution protect country and people, so the president of the time takes that oath of office to show his loyalty to that protection?
It puts a safe distance between president and country, so the state and its citizens are protected by constitutional continuity, not by an individual in office for only a few years.
In other words, it shows the president is a servant of the state, i.e. the citizenry and primary structure of their nation; not vice-versa. .
You're right Durdle I don't like the current prez. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with my question. I looked up the oath because I thought it specifically stated to preserve protect defend the country and the people and it does not. Where I got that idea I have no idea. I was shocked to discover it didn't. Never has. And that's why I asked. The Constitution is just a piece of paper outlining rules regs procedures. A SYMBOL. Idealized. The dos and don'ts and shoulds and shouldn'ts. Also the oath all federal employees take as well as the one the justices/judges take do not involve pledging loyalty to a human being. The current prez demands loyalty to him above all. That is not in the Constitution. Yet the folks obey obediently. That is also shocking to me. The flag is also a symbol. It represents our country. You pledge allegiance to a symbol but also say "and to the country for which it stands". Why doesn't the oath of office include after it says to preserve protect defend the Constitution include "and the country for which it stands"? Nitpicking I guess. Thank you for your reply and Happy Thursday to you! :)
This post was edited by RosieG at January 10, 2019 5:21 AM MST
I suppose the authors of your Constitution thought that loyalty to the nation was sufficiently implicit in the pledges of allegiance to flag and Constitution. They were probably trying to distance Nation from Government: the former should tell the latter what to do, not vice-versa.
I agree the President should not include himself in an oath that specifically does not mention people. I imagine that exclusion came about when the monarchs of the European countries whose emigrants formed the USA, had a lot more power and there was a lot of anti-Royalist feeling in Europe. Less so perhaps in Britain because we had already been steadily chipping away at the monarch's powers, starting with Magna Carta, while strengthening the powers of Parliament.
Your settler forebears wanted a republic with no dynastic ruler, simply an elected senior administrator.
The military oath of allegiance in Britain is to Sovereign and Country, I believe, but here the King or Queen is Head of State, taken as the geographical and political entity beyond the government of the day, and the population as a whole. The sovereign is not the Head of Government. That's the Prime Minister's role.
We don't have an oath of allegiance for civilian Governmental employees. They are Civil Servants irrespective of role or grade, employed with contracts essentially similar to those of many other major organisations, under similar terms and conditions, and the same employment-protection laws.
Durdle 