Bush should take loyalty oath


Published: Thursday, January 18, 2007 at 6:01 a.m.
Last Modified: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 at 11:15 p.m.
I agree with Commissioner Mike Byerly (Speaking Out, Jan. 14) that having to sign a loyalty oath is a bad idea. There are laws governing all criminal behavior, and civil courts to deal with other transgressions.
But if we want public officials to sign oaths, I know a government official who needs to sign one - President Bush. He has more trouble upholding the Constitution than he does eating pretzels. For example: Bush has subverted, ignored and violated several laws and international treaties, namely ones banning the use of torture, the use of aggression against non-threatening nations, the use of banned weaponry, and spying on Americans.. There are many more examples. The U.S. Constitution requires the president to abide by these laws and treaties. He does not.
He has issued hundreds of "signing statements" that, according to Bush, allow him to sign new laws while proclaiming that he has the right to ignore them at his sole discretion. Bush's disregard for the important balance of powers in government upends its checks and balances and turns him into the same type of tyrant that we shed during the American Revolution. Our Constitution was written to avoid returning to the type of rule that Bush has forced on us.
But really, it is too late for Bush to sign an oath to uphold the Constitution. It'd be ludicrous and hypocritical. Besides, Bush would simply attach a signing statement to his oath giving him the right to it at will.

Colin Whitworth,

Gainesville

Reader comments posted to this article may be published in our print edition. All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published without permission. Links are encouraged.

Comments are currently unavailable on this article

▲ Return to Top