PLEDGE TO NOT INCREASE TAXES VIOLATES OATH OF OFFICE

It continues to amaze me that so many Republicans, who extol the virtues of Constitutional purity, violate the Constitution, or advocate changing it, given every passing right-wing-outraged fad. There are so many of them. The shear mass of their ‘fighting points,’ pouring in from religious, supply side, and anti-other sources converge like a raging river. If you wrote them all down in one place, they would fill a very large volume which, doubtless, they would beat like their bibles with the bruises unfortunately showing up on the Constitution.

Perhaps the most egregious violation currently is the “No Net Tax Increase” pledge that a large majority of Republicans have made to Grover Norquist. He says the pledge is to the voter, but he is the enforcer. Those who are US Senators and Representatives have violated their Oaths of Office by signing that pledge and should do the honorable thing by resigning, or if not, they should be removed from office. Let me repeat the Oath.

“I, ___________, 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 underlining above is mine; I will show you why. First let me point out that this oath is a mandatory requirement in holding those offices. Article VI of the Constitution states: …. “The Senators and Representatives….shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution..”.

Here is the violation. Each of them has sworn or affirmed “..that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.” Article I, Section 8 enumerates the powers (and I would argue, duties) given to Congress by the Constitution. It starts, “The Congress shall have power, to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States”. I argue that this is not a privilege, but a duty since when new taxes are needed there is no one else specified to do it. The current refusal to raise the debt limit of the United States by those who have signed the “no-tax-increases-or-deduction-decreases-pledge,” means that they are refusing to do their duty to pay the nation’s already incurred debt, if in fact, new or increased taxes are needed. In doing so, they are violating their oaths of office.

Furthermore, in taking the Oath, they swore that they did so “with no mental reservation or purpose of evasion” and that they would “faithfully discharge the duties of the office.” Clearly, they were either knowingly lying if they took the Oath of Office after signing the Grover Norquist pledge, having pledged that they would not raise taxes, no matter what, as one means of paying the nation’s debts and providing for the nation’s defense and general welfare. Signing that pledge meant that they had “mental reservations” about fully exercising the powers and duties of the office, and clearly intended to evade the duty to do so. If they signed it after taking office, then they violated their Oath. Far better to do what Jon Huntsman did by saying that he would take no oaths or make no pledges other than the Oath of Office. Far better and more honorable, if knowing that being true to the Norquist pledge was a more sacred bond than the Oath of Office for the US Congress, it would have been to decline the Oath and the office. To take the Oath and office, intending to keep the Norquist pledge above all else, was to enter into a conspiracy with other pledge signers to change the Constitution of the United States without any citizens ever being able to vote on it.

Some who signed it, rather than lying, likely feared retribution from Norquist and his organization (it is unknown where he gets his funding). In that case, they willfully broke their oath and should be removed from office.

A little history is useful in understanding these Constitutional specifications. When the Constitutional Convention was convened to ‘improve’ the Articles of Confederation, the US was in a deep recession and was having difficulty paying its debts, particularly those owed the French for helping us during the Revolutionary War. Under the weak powers given the federal government, it was dependent on the states to fund it and pay its debts. The states were merrily going their own ways and not doing a very good job of providing – something like deadbeat dads. Furthermore, given no power over commerce, the federal government was unable to stop the states from waging trade wars against each other, and imposing tariffs to block competition. The states even had their own currencies. These were the conditions that were largely responsible for the recession and the philosophy of sovereign states rights and a weak central government was the source. Are you sure you want that again? Grover Norquist does.

A little more Constitutional history from a later period also has relevance here. After the Civil War, the 14th Amendment was enacted to protect the rights of the recently freed slaves and some of its other provisions took other measures to assure that the secessionist states followed the laws of the land. You have recently heard Section 4 of that Amendment discussed as a means for the President to prevent the US from defaulting on its debts, despite blocking efforts by the no-new-taxes-pledge Republicans. There is another provision of that same 14th Amendment that fits here as well. Section 3 states that “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, … who, having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

Consider that these anti-government, no-new-tax-pledge-Republicans are again attempting to significantly weaken the federal government; some of them have even advocated secession. Furthermore, in signing the no tax pledge, they are giving aid and comfort to Grover Norquist, whose published intention is to “shrink the federal government to the point that it is small enough to drown in a bathtub.” Is this, in principle, sufficiently different from giving aid and comfort to any other non-government organization whose intention is to weaken or destroy the United States government, even Al Qaeda? True, Norquist does no advocate violent means, but his practices have wreaked violent harm to many. A great many Norquist-pledging Tea Party state politicians have been slashing spending on health, education, and unemployment. People have died because they no longer could pay for the treatments they desperately needed. That may not be change by violent means, but it is change that does violence. One could even question whether, in signing the No-Net-Tax-Increase-Pledge, elected official are bordering on committing an act of treason?