Real Choice Of GOP Senators - Honor Your Oath Or Violate It

The impeachment trial of Donald Trump has begun. The evidence against him is overwhelming, but many Republican senators will likely vote to acquit him.

They see the choice they have as being loyal to Trump or not being loyal to him. But they are wrong. 

They took an oath when they became a senator, and took another as they sat down for this impeachment trial. The real choice they must make is whether to honor the oaths they took or violate those oaths.

Here is just a part of an excellent article by Greg Sargent in The Washington Post:

As Donald Trump’s impeachment trial gets underway, the choice GOP senators face is being wildly mischaracterized. We keep hearing that they must choose between sticking with the former president or opposing him — between showing “loyalty” to Trump or not showing loyalty to him. . . .

But that isn’t the choice GOP senators actually face, and describing this choice accurately is of paramount importance.

The real choice they face is not between sticking with Trump or going against him. Rather, it’s between sticking with Trump or remaining faithful to their oath of office, which requires them to defend the Constitution against those who would undermine or destroy it, and to the oath of impartiality they take as impeachment jurors.

Trump tried to overthrow U.S. democracy to keep himself in power illegitimately, first through corrupt legal efforts, then through nakedly extralegal means, and then by inciting intimidation and violence to disrupt the constitutionally designated process for securing the peaceful conclusion of free and fair elections.

Trump fully intended to subvert the constitutional process designating how our elections unfold, and intended this every step of the way. GOP senators cannot remain “loyal” to Trump without breaking their oaths to execute their public positions faithfully. . . .

Acquitting Trump means declaring that these known facts do not point to high crimes and misdemeanors.

Senators take an oath of office to “support and defend the Constitution.” When serving as impeachment jurors, they take another oath to “do impartial justice according to the Constitution.”

Corey Brettschneider, a constitutional scholar who focuses on the role of oaths of office in the constitutional scheme, says these two oaths complement one another.

“That second oath doesn’t replace the first,” Brettschneider tells me. “It clarifies it.”

In acting as jurors, Brettschneider says, senators are supposed to answer “the specific question” of whether the president is guilty of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

“Trump tried to subvert a free and fair election by spreading disinformation, trying to force public officials to overturn the results and riling his supporters up to attack the Capitol,” Brettschneider continued. “That is about as paradigmatic a high crime as one can get.”

When senators are in the role of jurors, Brettschneider continues, the two oaths interlock to set the terms of their “constitutional duty,” which precludes operating out of “partisan loyalty to a president.”

In other words, it’s either the former or the latter. The choice is not just about whether they are going to be “loyal” to Trump or not. That idea actually undersells the extraordinary dereliction of duty GOP senators will be committing if and when they vote to acquit.

Most People Want Trump Questioned By Mueller (Under Oath)

Trump has been all over the map when questioned about whether he would testify in the Mueller investigation of his possible collusion and other illegal activities. He has said he'd love to testify (and would do it under oath), but also said he doesn't see that his testimony should be needed.

I think one of the reasons he wanted the silly memo of Devin Nunes to be released is because he thought he could use it to avoid testifying -- either by firing Mueller or by claiming that the investigation was tainted and unfair. But if this poll is to be believed (and I think it should be), then Trump's excuses or avoidance of testifying is not going to sit well with the general public.

By a 49 point margin, the general public thinks Trump should submit to an interview by Mueller -- and by a 70 point margin, they think Trump should do that interview under oath.

The survey is the latest Monmouth University Poll -- done between January 28th and 30th of a random national sample of 806 adults, with a margin of error of 3.5 points.

Air Force Now Says "God" Can Be Omitted From The Oath

Last Sunday I posted about the  U.S. Air Force refusing to let an airman re-enlist because he refused to include the words"So Help Me God" in his military oath. The Air Force had allowed those joining or re-enlisting to omit the words in the past, but changed that last October. They said those words must be in the oath, and claimed they were just coming into compliance with federal rules.

Of course their action violated an article of the Constitution saying no religious test could be required as a "qualification for any office or public trust", and also violated the freedom of religion portion of the First Amendment (which also guarantees the right to be free from religion). The American Humanist Association (AHA) wrote the Air Force on behalf of the atheist airman, and threatened to sue unless he was allowed to omit the four offensive words.

Now, only a week later, there is good news to report. The Air Force has reversed their decision, and will allow the airman (and anyone else) to omit the words from his military oath. They did so on orders from the Department of Defense, who said the airman must be allowed to re-enlist without having to include _So Help Me God" in his oath of service. Here is the press release from the Air Force on this matter (released on September 17th):

 The Air Force has instructed force support offices across the service to allow both enlisted members and officers to omit the words “So help me God” from enlistment and officer appointment oaths if an Airman chooses.

In response to concerns raised by Airmen, the Department of the Air Force requested an opinion from the Department of Defense General Counsel addressing the legal parameters of the oath. The resulting opinion concluded that an individual may strike or omit the words “So help me God” from an enlistment or appointment oath if preferred.

“We take any instance in which Airmen report concerns regarding religious freedom seriously,” said Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James. “We are making the appropriate adjustments to ensure our Airmen's rights are protected.”

The Air Force will be updating the instructions for both enlisted and commissioned Airmen to reflect these changes in the coming weeks, but the policy change is effective now. Airmen who choose to omit the words 'So help me God' from enlistment and officer appointment oaths may do so.

The language in previous instructions was based on an Air Force legal interpretation of 10 U.S.C. 502, 5 U.S.C. 3331 and Title 32, which contain the oaths of office.

The Air Force requested the review following a ceremony at Creech Air Force Base, Nevada, in which an enlisted Airman struck out the words, “So help me God” on the Department of Defense Form 4 and did not include them in his verbal oath. The Airman's unit was unable to process his paperwork due to the guidance in Air Force Instruction 36-2606, Reenlistment in the United States Air Force, which prohibited any omissions. Now that the Department of Defense General Counsel has provided an opinion, the Airman’s enlistment paperwork will be processed to completion.

Why Should Atheists Have To Say "So Help Me God" In Their Oath To Join The United States Military ?

On August 25th, the United States Air Force refused to allow an airman to re-enlist. It had nothing to do with performance issues, because the Air Force wants the airman to re-enlist. The problem is the airman, when signing his re-enlistment oath, struck out the last four words of that oath. The four words in question are "So help me God". The airman is an atheist, and objected to having to swear to any kind of god -- especially since re-joining the military of a secular nation (and that's what this nation is, whether the religionists like it or not).

The crazy part is that when the atheist airman first joined the Air Force he was not required to include those four words in his oath. In the past, the Air Force has allowed the omitting of those four words from the oath. But that all changed on October 30th of last year, when the Air Force started requiring everyone taking the oath to include "So help me God" -- even if they are an atheist (or other non-believer).

The airman is still on duty at a Nevada Air Force base, because his enlistment is not over until November. But the Air Force says he will not be allowed to re-enlist without saying the complete oath (including the offensive four words), and if he does not comply he will be severed from military service.

Fortunately, the American Humanist Association (AHA) has gone to bat for the airman. They have written the Air Force, and warned them they are violating Article VI, paragraph 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which says "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States". I don't see how being a member of the military of this country wouldn't be considered a "public trust". The AHA has promised to file suit against the Air Force if the airman is not allowed to re-enlist without swearing to any god.

The YouGov Poll decided to find out what the American public thinks about this. Their survey was done on September 11th and 12th of a random national sample of 1,000 adults, with a margin of error of about 4 points. It seems that 75% (or 3 out of every 4 people) don't have a problem with atheists serving in the military. They are fine with atheists serving as cannon fodder for our corporate-owned government.

But a significant number of them want to force their own religion down the throats of the atheists who chose to serve -- about 34% of the general public, and 52%of Republicans and protestants would force atheists to take the oath with the words "So help me God" included. As god-believers, they don't realize how offensive those words can be to an atheist -- as offensive as they would consider it if they were required to swear to Allah, Vishnu, Odin, Ba'al, Mithras, Zeus, or any other god they don't believe in.

This is a secular nation, and always has been. The writers of our constitution knew that the best way to protect religious freedom was to keep government out of religion. Why then is this secular government requiring members of the military to pass a religious test by swearing to a god? Does that even make sense? Doesn't freedom of religion, guaranteed by the First Amendment, also protect the right to be free from religion?

Arizona Bill Would Prevent Graduations

The chart above, from the Progressive Policy Institute, shows the stark truth about unemployment in the United States. The blue bars illustrate that the more education a person has, the better chance they have of finding gainful employment. That shouldn't really surprise any of us. The red bars show that the possibility of being unable to find employment doubles in a recession economy (like the one most Americans are still experiencing). The possibility of a person without a high school education being unemployed in our economy has doubled since 2007.

I present this chart to show the importance of getting as much education as possible these days. But while we need to be doing something to keep kids in school so they can graduate (in some states as many as nearly 1/3 of students do not graduate), some right-wing legislators are doing just the opposite. They are introducing bills that would keep some students from graduating high school.

That is the case with a bill introduced by State Rep. Bob Thorpe in the Arizona legislature. His bill would require all students in that state to swear an oath before they could graduate (regardless of how well they did in school or how high their grade average was). This is the oath he would require:

You may not think making students swear such an oath is a bad thing, but I certainly do. The oath could not be taken by any self-respecting atheist student (or even many agnostics and skeptics), and it would also deny graduation to some religious students -- such as those in religions where swearing an oath of any kind is forbidden (like Seventh-Day Adventists, whose right not to swear an oath has been affirmed by the Supreme Court).

This is a stupid bill. I do know what it is supposed to accomplish, but I do know it could keep many deserving students from graduating high school. I would like to think that even the Arizona legislature is not crazy enough to pass this ridiculous bill, or the Supreme Court would strike it down if it was passed -- but both organizations have made some decisions in the recent past that were very questionable (if not downright stupid).

In fact, I do not like the idea of making students (or citizens) swear a loyalty oath anyway. That is the kind of thing done in fascist states, not free democracies. In a free democracy, citizens have the right (and duty) to oppose what their government is doing when it goes "off the track". That is what freedom means.

Refreshing Change

The picture above shows new Representative Kyrsten Sinema (D-Arizona) being sworn in by Speaker Boehner on the first day of the 113th Congress. What may not be evident in the picture, but is certainly important, is that Rep. Sinema does not have her hand on a Bible (or any other religious book). That's because she is the only openly atheist member of the current Congress (although she has started referring to herself as "non-religious" rather than atheist). She is taking the oath of office with her hand on a copy of the United States Constitution -- which makes sense because that is the document she is swearing to uphold.

A Historic Moment

Sonia Sotomayor takes the oath to become a Supreme Court justice on a Bible held by her mother.