Boyer: Elected officials must abide by their Oaths of Office to ensure our government functions as designed
Letter to the editor
The Oath of Office taken by elected officials is not a mere formality but a solemn promise to uphold the principles and restraints outlined in the United States Constitution. These constitutional principles serve as the foundation of American governance, ensuring the protection of individual rights, the balance of power, and the promotion of Liberty.
The United States Constitution was designed to establish a government that respects and protects the rights of its citizens. By honoring the Oath of Office, elected officials commit to upholding the fundamental principles that limit government as enshrined in the Constitution. When those in power ignore these restraints, they undermine the very principles that define the federal government and jeopardize the rights and liberties of the people they are meant to serve.
The Constitution establishes a system of checks and balances to prevent the accumulation of power in any one branch of government. By honoring the Oath of Office, elected officials pledge to abide by these restraints and respect the separation of powers. When the government ignores these principles, such as Congress abdicating legislative powers to the Executive branch, it can lead to a concentration of power and an erosion of the system of checks and balances.
The Constitution guarantees an independent judiciary that interprets the law (the judiciary does not interpret the Constitution) and acts as a check on the other branches of government. When judges disregard constitutional restraints and ignore their Oath of Office, they damage the independence of the judiciary. By “interpreting” the Constitution to cover for bad laws, these judges politicize the judicial system, compromising the impartiality and fairness of the courts.
The Oath of Office signifies a commitment to the social contract between the government and the people. By honoring this oath, elected officials acknowledge their responsibility to govern in accordance with the principles outlined in the Constitution. When these restraints are ignored, it weakens the social contract and erodes the legitimacy of the government. This can lead to social unrest, polarization, and a breakdown of societal cohesion.
Honoring the Oath of Office is vital for preserving the principles and restraints of government as enshrined in the United States Constitution. Failure to abide by these constitutional principles can lead to severe consequences, including the erosion of our Republic, abuse of power, loss of public trust, and a weakening of the social fabric. It is the duty of elected officials to honor their oaths and respect the constitutional restraints, for it is through this commitment that the government can uphold the values and principles upon which the nation was built.
The United States Constitution is the document that defines our government. Written by those that lived through tyranny, with the sole purpose of preserving individual liberty, the Constitution specifically limits the power of the central government. Our duty as American citizens is to first understand our constitution and the principles of limited government, then elect officials that recognize those limitations, will swear an oath to adhere to those limitations, and will govern from within those limitations. When an elected official strays from that oath, they have lied to all those the official represents and there should be accountability from within the districts that elected the official.
The government will not police itself, and its inherent nature is to grow its power. If Americans held their elected officials to account for the lack of adherence to their oath, the government’s power would be restrained.
Walt Boyer, Newberry
The opinions expressed by letter or opinion writers are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of AlachuaChronicle.com. Letters may be submitted to info@alachuachronicle.com and are published at the discretion of the editor.
Mr. Boyer’s points are right on target.
Accountability is critical for a Democracy
to work properly.
The lack of it has created numerous bad decisions in Alachua County.
Yes, Mr. Boyers is correct in his writing. The problems seems more of accountability issue. These elected officials know what the U.S. Constitution, the Florida Constitution, as well as everything they promise when they swear in on the oaths of office. The fact of the matter is that a lot of them don’t care about the oath they swore too but care more on how to destroy it. And when found to be out of bounds they try to justify it by making any violation a political or make up racial outcry. There is also a lack of drive to actually hold elected officials accountable. Of course there is always good talk of holding them responsible but when it comes down to dropping the hammer on them all elected officials seem hesitate. Example case and point. Who un their rights minds would trust that the FBI would do a accurate, fair, and evidence based on them. We can say the same thing about Clovis Watson. If he is willing to step all over his deputies rights how about him stepping all over a citizens rights. This man has been around long enough, and been in law enforcement long enough to know what he did was wrong. And being caught and ruled against, he just side steps and cancels the investigations and acts like the rights violation never happened. Truth is Watson should be removed by the Governor and a complete investigation should be conducted.
It’s been said many times here on the Chronicle’s comment spaces that those a community elects are representatives of that community and what that community embraces as well as tolerates.
The tolerance of ineptitude and dysfunction in local government is becoming legendary in Gainesville’s Blue Lagoon.
Our utility was ruined by former Mayor Pegeen Hanrahan who violated her oath of office by taking her orders from the United Nations by trying to comply with Kyoto Protocol to stop climate change by going biomass. She was hook, line, & sinker for that cap & trade CO2 regulation. The US was not a signatory to Kyoto Protocol. Desantis
Should require all current elected officials to reaffirm their oath of office to the State & US constitutions…any elected official who does not honor their oath of office should be fined, jailed, & removed from office. The United Nations , the WHO, & the WEF are foreign organizations and any politician who pushes Agenda 21, Agenda 30, or Great Reset should be removed from
Office for violation of their oath of office. Our rights are inalienable, and removal of these Marxist commie globalists from office will protect our freedom & liberty. God Bless America. Do not comply with Vaccine Passport…that’s mark of the beast.
Boyer: “The Constitution guarantees an independent judiciary that interprets the law (the judiciary does not interpret the Constitution)…”
Well, yes, on occasion SCOTUS does, in fact, interpret the Constitution when there is no clear law to rely upon.
For example, the ‘intent’ of the Constitution’s authors was to have a clear separation among the legislature, executive, and judiciary branches of government.
However, in the case of – taking contemporary examples – immigration and funding government programs which are the Constitutionally established jobs of the Congress, the Executive branch has ventured into those areas causing action being taken by SCOTUS to ‘interpret’ the constitutionality of the actions.
‘Judicial Review’ by SCOTUS is a process by which, according to James Madison, “constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges, rather than to the tumult and conflict of the political process.” (from SCOTUS website)
Though not constitutionally empowered, SCOTUS’ judicial review powers were confirmed and accepted in 1803’s Marbury v. Madison case.
So, yes, SCOTUS does, in fact, interpret the Constitution.
Accountability – law and ballot box – should, indeed, be a recourse for misdeeds.
But, an ‘oath’ is not a legally binding contract although required for some government jobs. At best it is a promise premised on ability to fulfill that promise which is often determined by the voters and confirmation processes by the Senate.
When it is the Constitution being interpreted, it ends up changing the Constitution to the will of the interpreter which has every possible chance of changing yet again. Madison held that Judicial review was not review of the Constitution to see how to make a statute acceptable, but instead Judicial review was to weigh the statute against the plain meaning of the Constitution therefore determining the constitutionality of the statute. Madison’s belief in the plain meaning of the text at the time the Constitution was ratified verifies his position that the meaning of the document does not lend itself to interpretation.
And you are very wrong about the Oath of Office. It is in fact a legally binding contract as required by the Constitution. Not only does one repeat the oath, but it requires a notary and witness to legitimize the spoken oath. So when your favorite elected official pushes policy that is beyond the listed enumerated powers of the the Constitution, the very first act of betrayal is failing to uphold that Oath.
If this is in fact the case, then why cannot Hanrahan, Poe and others be charged with a crime?
Their actions have caused outrage and financial damage to the community.
The actions of the County and city governments fall under the jurisdiction of the State as that is where “local power” originates. In Florida, Counties and cities derive their existence from the State and is where our grievances should to be heard when the local system has been rigged in favor of a perpetual majority of a single party. Complaining locally really doesn’t accomplish much unless you can persuade the majority your position has merit. That is a tough nut to crack in Alachua. Fortunately under the administration of Gov DeSantis, we have seen some accountability by the removal of elected school board members, the implementation of Single Member Districts, and the creation of a GRU governing board. Unfortunately, many of those that created the mess are no longer elected officials that can be held accountable.
Walt, doesn’t the true accountability belong to the voters who keep voting for the same candidates taking the city and county a further step down in quality of life for all?
If voters keep voting for dogs and are surprised that dogs bark, how can we keep blaming the dogs?
Citizen, your question is also the answer.
Poe and others only need to claim they did the best they could do which is what the oath essentially is.
But, if there is a crime – i.e. an audit shows fraud or theft – then legal charges can be made.
Simply, in our opinions, they are do not live up to their oaths of office isn’t enough to remove them.
The ballot box is the voters’ weapon.
The oath of office is, indeed, required by the Constitution, but it is not, nor cannot be legally binding.
For example, I took this oath as a commissioned Army Officer, “I, [name], 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”
Ok.
Now, as an officer under orders to complete a tactical objective, do I follow those orders when I determine them not to be lawful? Is it then, a violation of my oath to not follow those orders even though they come from those equally under oath to ‘support and defend?’
Yes, that is a valid defense which cannot be challenged based upon the ambiguity of an oath.
Hence, oaths are not legally binding to conduct when the conduct is claimed to be lawful, or, unlawful.
“I faithfully discharged my duty in disobeying what I recognized as an unlawful order.”
The oath isn’t challenged, the conduct can be.
Politically, however (I think that is what is being focused on here), the Congress can impeach (a political act) a president for failure to execute the oath of office, but, the conviction requires specific misdeeds because the oath is not subject to an enforceable contract; it’s too ambiguous beyond the promissory.
It should be noted a function of the oath of office is to remind the oath taker he or she serves a higher authority than those who supervise and, thusly, can freely interpret ‘what’ that oath’s obligations entail.
Oaths to ‘truth’ in legal proceedings are different. To attest to information provided under ‘oath’ to be true simply means one is aware that giving false statements is a crime and punishable under statutes.
Yes, there is a problem with candidates promising anything to get elected. It is also a problem that candidates and elected official lie even when fact checked and corrected.
Now, is it a crime (violation of oath) for President Obama to lie about Obamacare? Is it a crime for President Trump to lie about Stormy Daniels? Is it a crime for President Biden to lie about, well, just about everything?
The answer to all is probably ‘no’ because all three are held accountable, or not, by the voters.
‘Betrayal’ is a descriptor of a crime – i.e. treason – but not a crime in itself.
Your oath is to the constitution and any order given in pursuance of the Constitution must be followed. As a member of the military, as part of that oath, it is your constitutional right to question unconstitutional orders regardless of the guaranteed repercussions you will receive. But if no one questions unlimited authority, it will never be exposed or reeled in. I took that Oath when I enlisted in the Navy and there is no expiration date listed when taking the oath.