There are a few people in this world that can be depended upon to make complete fools of themselves on the national scene. Unfortunately, they are generally the same individuals that find themselves in the good graces of the dominant media. Nancy Pelosi, with a straight face and honest intent, suggested her duty of “protecting” the Constitution demanded further restrictions on the Second Amendment. Of course, few people have accused her of being intelligent.
In a press release marking the tragedy of the Aurora Theater Shooting in Aurora, Colorado, Pelosi was quoted as saying “In Congress, there can be no more fitting memorial to the lives lost in Aurora, in Newtown, and across the country than a concerted effort to enact commonsense gun safety legislation. We must uphold our oath to ‘protect and defend’ the Constitution and all Americans by expanding background checks and keeping dangerous firearms out of the wrong hands.” Has anyone informed this woman from the Socialist Republic of California that the Second Amendment was added, through a judicious legal process, as an extension of the very Constitution to which she swore an allegiance?
We can leave the issue of gun control legislation to another column, on another day. But Pelosi’s blissful ignorance of her responsibility doesn’t seem to end at her fundamental misunderstanding of our Constitution. In an effort to garnish her contradictory remarks with compounding irony, the former Speaker of the US House quoted, in her press release, a phrase from the Presidential Oath of Office; not the oath of lawmakers.
The Oath Pelosi swore as a member of congress reads as follows:
“I do solemnly swear 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.]”
It would seem, to casual observers of constitutional law, that such an oath would demand an adherence to the meaning of the Second Amendment. But, leave it to a California Liberal to use an oath of allegiance to the Constitution as grounds for the dismantling of its “teeth.”
Get the Market Movements in Advance: William's Edge Webinar for Wednesday, March 12th, 2014 | John Ransom