Brennan takes oath on draft Constitution—without Bill of Rights

Will E Worm

Conspiracy...
Brennan takes oath on draft Constitution—without Bill of Rights

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?

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?

Article



A History of the Bill of Rights

"[A] bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse."
--- Thomas Jefferson December 20, 1787

Article

The absence of a "bill of rights" turned out to be an obstacle to the Constitution's ratification by the states. It would take four more years of intense debate before the new government's form would be resolved. The Federalists opposed including a bill of rights on the ground that it was unnecessary. The Anti-Federalists, who were afraid of a strong centralized government, refused to support the Constitution without one.

In the end, popular sentiment was decisive. Recently freed from the despotic English monarchy, the American people wanted strong guarantees that the new government would not trample upon their newly won freedoms of speech, press and religion, nor upon their right to be free from warrantless searches and seizures. So, the Constitution's framers heeded Thomas Jefferson who argued: "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference."

The American Bill of Rights, inspired by Jefferson and drafted by James Madison, was adopted, and in 1791 the Constitution's first ten amendments became the law of the land.


The Bill of Rights is the law, whether or not they want them to be.

John Brennan Converted to Islam ...
 

Mayhem

Banned
Will, you're going to pull a muscle with all this overreaching.

And do you have an ounce of proof that he converted to Islam, or should we just take your word for it?
 
Will, you're going to pull a muscle with all this overreaching.

And do you have an ounce of proof that he converted to Islam, or should we just take your word for it?

I still don't understand why it would even matter. Can someone explain this to me? Does the Qur'an prohibit working for intelligence agencies or something?
 

Mr. Daystar

In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
It doesn't matter if he takes it on the ORIGINAL BIBLE, while tightly clutching the ORIGINAL Bill Of Rights, as the Pope blesses him, and Allah praises him.............He's a politician, and a tool of the system. If he wants to use the Constitution as toilet paper, and the Supreme Court Ot The United States as his personal toilet, he will, and he'll get away with it, just like they all do.
 

JaanaRuutu

Official Checked Star Member
yeah, the guy who supports using drones in the Middle East is a secret Muslim. He use of drones is why Rand Paul was against him. You just fucking make shit up, don't you?
 

Will E Worm

Conspiracy...
It doesn't matter if he takes it on the ORIGINAL BIBLE, while tightly clutching the ORIGINAL Bill Of Rights, as the Pope blesses him, and Allah praises him.............He's a politician, and a tool of the system. If he wants to use the Constitution as toilet paper, and the Supreme Court Ot The United States as his personal toilet, he will, and he'll get away with it, just like they all do.

;)


yeah, the guy who supports using drones in the Middle East is a secret Muslim. He use of drones is why Rand Paul was against him. You just fucking make shit up, don't you?

Yes, that guy. He's not a secret Muslim, he is one.
 

Mr. Daystar

In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
yeah, the guy who supports using drones in the Middle East is a secret Muslim. He use of drones is why Rand Paul was against him. You just fucking make shit up, don't you?

This guy also has the right, according to the attorney general of the United States, to use them over American soil, and to strike against American citizens, on that soil. That's why Rand Paul had a problem with the whole situation, and rightly so. In fact, they ARE going to be using them over American soil for surveillance. Whether they're armed at this point or not, is unknown, but what IS KNOWN, is that these things don't have the greatest stability record when it comes to staying in the sky. Another words, more then one has unexpectedly fallen to Earth....so what happens, when that happens over a populated American city? More importantly, what happens if the fucking thing has a couple of missiles on it?
 

Mr. Daystar

In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
I'm all for doing what can be done, to keep American soldiers safer, but there's definitely some shady business going on with all of this drone bullshit. Personally, I think the main reason that they're being pushed on the government, especially over U.S. soil, is because the companies that make them, have filled some pockets with dough, and don't want the gravy train to end.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-air-force-stops-reporting-data-afghanistan-drone-084024541.html
 

JaanaRuutu

Official Checked Star Member
FYI I'm not pro-drone at home, I was just stating why Rand Paul was against this guy. It had nothing to do with anything but his drone policies, not his religion.
 
Top