The Constitution of the United States mandates three oaths which apply to those who govern our nation.

The oath of the president of the United states administered upon inauguration or ascension to office via succession is specified in Article II, Section One, Clause 8.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Article VI, Clause 3 requires all other federal and state legislators, executive officers and judges take an oath, specified by Congress, to protect the Constitution.  The current legislated language reads:

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. [So help me God.]

The third oath is situation specific as provided for in Article I, Section Three, Clause 6.  It states the Senate has sole power to try all impeachments and Senators “shall be on Oath or Affirmation.”  The oath, established by Senate rule in 1868, reads as follows.

Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of [NAME], [OFFICE], now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help you god?

If you are a commissioned officer in the United States military, you take the following oath prescribed in Section 331, Title 5, United States Code.

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

If you are a naturalized citizen of the United States, you too must take an oath as prescribed by law in Section 337(a) in the Immigration Nationality Act as follows.

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

I could go on and on, but you get the point.  The only people who do not have to take the an oath of allegiance to the Constitution are the 82.3 percent of Americans who are native born citizens who are not government officials or serve in the armed forces.  The closest one comes to such an oath is the Pledge of Allegiance, in which we are asked to be faithful to the flag and “to the Republic for which it stands.”  I use the term “faithful” intentionally, for it is literally an act of faith that the overwhelming majority of Americans, by accident of birth, will uphold the foundations of our republic.

Republic, an interesting word which has been thrown around a lot in the past two months.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was the first of many to relate Benjamin Franklin’s admonition about the fragility of our constitutional form of government during her announcement the House would move forward with impeachment.

On the final day of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, when our Constitution was adopted, Americans gathered on the steps of Independence Hall to await the news of a government our founders had crafted. They asked Benjamin Franklin: “What do we have? A republic or a monarchy?”  Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

If things go as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell predicts, one wonders if we still have a Republic.  When 75 percent of Americans want to hear witnesses and 50 plus Senator ignore them, it is hard to call that a republic.  When 90 percent of Americans want universal background checks for firearm purchases and one man Massacre Mitch refuses to bring legislation to the Senate floor, how can you call that representative government?

As difficult as this is to acknowledge, the ideal of a republic envisioned by James Madison and the founders was laid to rest on January 31, 2020.  Those who swore to ensure this day never came have violated their sacred oaths.  Franklin was right.  However, he did not complete the thought.  If only Franklin, often referred to as “the first American” had added, “But if the republic fails, you still have democracy.”

So, the question we should be asking on January 31, 2020 is, “What do we have?  A democracy or a monarchy?”  The answer will come on November 3, 2020.  If only every voter had to raise their right hand and put their left hand on a copy of the Constitution before casting their ballots and avow:

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

For what its worth.
Dr. ESP

The title of today’s post is an obvious reference to the book and movie Searching for Bobby Fisher, chess’ version of the The Great White Hope.  Except in this case, the goal was not to find a Caucasian boxer who could defeat the first black heavyweight champion.  It was the story of Josh Waitzkin, a young prodigy who many viewed as America’s best chance of regaining superiority over Soviet grand masters of the “game of kings.”

Fifty two years ago, the United States was a divided nation.  Divided along racial lines, divided along economic status, and divided over a war in Vietnam.  In June 1968, American voters were looking for a candidate who could bring the country together.  Many Democrats believed Robert Kennedy had such potential.   In the era of Donald Trump, many of us are waiting for the next Bobby Kennedy without quite knowing what that means.  Perhaps the best description comes from the eulogy delivered by his brother Ted.

My brother need not be idealized, or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life; to be remembered simply as a good and decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it.

Is that not what so many cry out for today?  The Democratic nominee need not be larger than life.  We know what that looks like.  A narcissistic cult figure who governs by fear. Good and decent, righting wrong, healing suffering and pursuing peace should be sufficient.

So how do we decide who best satisfies these criteria.  One way is to examine their life’s work.  And each of the candidates for the Democratic nomination can point to achievements and causes of which they can be proud.  But, as is often said, being president of the United States and leader of the free world is unlike anything else an individual can appreciate or experience until they occupy the Oval Office.

We complain about what Jimmy Carter called “not a sprint, but a marathon,” the months and now years of campaigning to win the White House.  But the challenges of running for the nation’s highest office are the best indicators of how one might govern.  How prepared is the candidate to respond to current events?  Can he or she bring people together, not by pandering to different audiences, but explaining consistent goals and policies in a way they can be understood by  a diverse audience?  How do they treat their rivals, as enemies or as future allies?

The number of still undecided voters in the national and early primary state polls suggests many Democrats have not yet found a champion.  I am one of them.  I am concerned that the current front runners have taken their eye off the prize, competing against each other rather than explaining what decency, compassion and justice will look like in a post-Trump America.  Trump daily force feeds them opportunities to do this and they do not seem to respond.

Perhaps the most blatant example are recent charges by several of the candidates that the party should not allow Mike Bloomberg to “buy the presidency.”  The Democratic National Committee (DNC) has implicitly affirmed this position by making the number of grassroots contributions a criterion for debate participation.  (NOTE:  As I have argued on numerous occasions, being excluded from these so-called debates should be viewed as a plus.)  Is it not more important what you do with the resources at your disposable? Is that not what we ask of Congress and the President?  We expect to pay taxes and probably would mind less if we felt those dollars were being spent effectively.

Which brings me to why attacks on Mike Bloomberg are short sighted and self-defeating.  Today, I received an email from MoveOn.com.  The message?  If only I would send them some money today, they would start airing television ads in states with vulnerable Republican senators, imploring those members of the Trump jury to demand witnesses and evidence.  Mike Bloomberg has been doing that for the last 10 days.

Trump again showed his ignorance and lack of compassion for our men and women in uniform by suggesting injuries suffered as a result of Irani retaliation for the death of Qasem Soleimani were minor, just “headaches.”  Within 24 hours Bloomberg aired spots on national TV, including Fox News, chastising Trump for disrespecting the troops he commands.  And following further rollbacks in environmental protection, there were ads about the existential danger from Trump’s climate change denial.

Some may find these ads self-serving.  But that does not explain the $45 million dollars Bloomberg spent on behalf of 24 Democratic candidates in 2018.  Of the targeted races, the Democrat in 21 districts flipped the congressional seat from red to blue.  Or the millions of dollars he has donated to causes including sensible gun laws, climate change and the opioid crisis.

If Democrats want to talk about buying elections, they need to turn their attention to the $29 billion of your money that Trump hopes will placate farmers who should be suffering more than they already are from his trade wars.  Or the trillions of dollars in tax cuts to lure wealthy donors to finance his dishonest and inflammatory campaign.

Like so many things espoused by the evangelical community, there is no biblical reference for the oft repeated adage attributed to Jesus, “Hate the sin but love the sinner.”  But it does help explain my current fascination with Mike Bloomberg.  I am far from convinced he is the Bobby Kennedy for whom I keep searching, but I wholeheartedly endorse the campaign he is running.  In other words, one can love the campaign without yet loving the candidate.

POSTSCRIPT:  Media Gone Wild

Ignoring facts must be contagious.  This morning, Brian Stelter, host of CNN’s Reliable Sources was discussing the impact of the impeachment trial on public opinion.  Both he and his two guests suggested the country was “split down the middle.” He then showed a graphic of opinions of independent voters in which 53 percent now favor impeachment and removal from office.  Support for acquittal was 34 percent.  To which Stelter said (I kid you not), “Again, split right down the middle.”  No statistics text I used in college ever described a 19 point difference as evenly divided.  It makes one wonder if these folks ever listen to what they are saying.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP