Rep David Scott claims Congress takes an Oath to defend the Federal Government

By:  ~Q~

~II~ Thewatchtowers.com  ~II~

Buried in the debate prior to the House vote to pass the “Senate agreement”.

It is what it is. As he states into the record they have passed into the law as well a binding solemn oath.

[link to www.c-spanvideo.org

Rep Scott comes on at the 27:10 mark…..he is then followed by the ONLY one during the debate prior to the vote who opposed the bill Rep Ted Poe.

Here is the transcript from the Congressional Record of Scott’s statements:.

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia
Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise to support this very needed legislation.
Let me make a point here. There is a very important part of this legislation which sets up the budget commission. I would just like to make an appeal to that commission to not only get to us a good budget by December 15, but take some time to see how we can get some mechanisms in place to prevent us from ever again shutting down the Federal Government.
We take a solemn oath here to defend the Federal Government, to support the Federal Government, to uphold the Federal Government. We must honor that. Maybe we can do mandatory arbitration in its place. But we have got some smart people in this place. We hurt too many people when we shut down the Federal Government.
Hopefully, we can put the Mitch McConnell rule in place. God bless that Senator from Kentucky, and the courage that he had to step forward in a bipartisan way so that we can put that mechanism in place so that we will never again put our good faith and credit at risk in this country.

Finally, let us, Democrats and Republicans, work together, beginning tonight, and pass this bill.

This is important as it really flies in the face of some convention and I would say that some are going to say and write and debate loudly perhaps statutes, codes and laws. 

Arbitration and not any consequences the courts of law but through who’s arbitration? The Federal Governments own?… Oh of course.

Disturbing to say the least.”

I could well imagine this in being used in the fall of Rome. Reform to promote good governance. The peoples voices being one in terms of legislation and cooperation for the common good in any way it can be found or achieved.  The implication is that they agree to  keep the corporation of the Federal Government in allegiance bound now by this new oath.  What an idea that they would need to seek to be bound any further. The two party system is what? Alive and well? The illusions are outstanding

This is like the Bar. The oath is to the bar and the courts (and all its officers codes, etc.), not first to the people they are in charge of. When I say that they are to be in the peoples charge as they have elected them and charged them to their duties. I think with out the bill being amended to be stricken of this new binding oath (?) it appears to have for certain be on the record and now at law…

So this is a good thing in many ways if it in deed can bring the two law making heavy weights to   idea that this

“We take a solemn oath here to defend the Federal Government, to support the Federal Government, to uphold the Federal Government.”

At the end of this look at this Bill at such a time as it is in America now that the USA is to big to fail and that the business of the Federal government means that lively hood of many american people both at home and abroad.

 

 

TheWatchTowers.org
Translate »