Brennan takes oath on draft Constitution

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

Oh, dear. This is probably not the symbolism the White House wanted.

Hours after CIA Director John Brennan took the oath of office—behind closed doors, far away from the press, perhaps befitting his status as America's top spy—the White House took pains to emphasize the symbolism of the ceremony.

“There's one piece of this that I wanted to note for you,” spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters at their daily briefing. “Director Brennan was sworn in with his hand on an original draft of the Constitution that had George Washington's personal handwriting and annotations on it, dating from 1787.”

Earnest said Brennan had asked for a document from the National Archives that would demonstrate the U.S. is a nation of laws.

"Director Brennan told the president that he made the request to the archives because he wanted to reaffirm his commitment to the rule of law as he took the oath of office as director of the CIA,” Earnest said.

The Constitution itself went into effect in 1789. But troublemaking blogger Marcy Wheeler points out that what was missing from the Constitution in 1787 is also quite symbolic: The Bill of Rights, which did not officially go into effect until December 1791 after ratification by states. (Caution: Marcy's post has some strong language.)

That means: No freedom of speech and of the press, no right to bear arms, no Fourth Amendment ban on “unreasonable searches and seizures,” and no right to a jury trial.

How ... symbolic?

link

[newacct 688]

Yes. Taking an oath on the U.S. Constitution document symbolizes lack of respect for freedoms. That makes a lot of sense.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Oh, dear. This is probably not the symbolism the White House wanted.

Hours after CIA Director John Brennan took the oath of office—behind closed doors, far away from the press, perhaps befitting his status as America's top spy—the White House took pains to emphasize the symbolism of the ceremony.

"There's one piece of this that I wanted to note for you," spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters at their daily briefing. "Director Brennan was sworn in with his hand on an original draft of the Constitution that had George Washington's personal handwriting and annotations on it, dating from 1787."

Earnest said Brennan had asked for a document from the National Archives that would demonstrate the U.S. is a nation of laws.

"Director Brennan told the president that he made the request to the archives because he wanted to reaffirm his commitment to the rule of law as he took the oath of office as director of the CIA," Earnest said.

The Constitution itself went into effect in 1789. But troublemaking blogger Marcy Wheeler points out that what was missing from the Constitution in 1787 is also quite symbolic: The Bill of Rights, which did not officially go into effect until December 1791 after ratification by states. (Caution: Marcy's post has some strong language.)

That means: No freedom of speech and of the press, no right to bear arms, no Fourth Amendment ban on "unreasonable searches and seizures," and no right to a jury trial.

How ... symbolic?

link

Now that's funny right there. Those clown have shot in foot syndrome. I hereby promise to support and defend the constitution.. LOL but not the one in force today.

Edited March 9, 2013 by The Nature Boy

[Pooky 3,784]

Yes. Taking an oath on the U.S. Constitution document symbolizes lack of respect for freedoms. That makes a lot of sense.

But it was not the Constitution. Try reading the article and understanding what this draft version lacked.

Then understand the meaning of symbolism.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Pooky

[newacct 688]

But it was not the Constitution. Try reading the article and understanding what this draft version lacked.

Then understand the meaning of symbolism.

No, I understood what the article was talking about. The final U.S. Constitution did not have the Bill of Rights. Draft or not is irrelevant.

Edited March 9, 2013 by newacct

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I'm going to have to agree with new account (sock puppet?). Are we to assume that he also supports slavery given the 13th amendment was not in that version ?

I don't think so.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Usui Takumi

[^_^ 5,021]

Some of those slavers were from what is now Kenya. Coincidence? I think not.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

No, I understood what the article was talking about. The final U.S. Constitution did not have the Bill of Rights. Draft or not is irrelevant.

So ti would have been the same if he had done it on the Articles of Confederation ?

Edited March 9, 2013 by The Nature Boy

[james&olya 1,121]

There is not enough tin foil in existence world-wide for some people!