When they refuse to supply oath info...
- --- Legalbear <bear@...> wrote:
> "public men, are, as it were, public property," andYou may be trying to make a point here, but I fail to
> "discussion cannot be
> denied and the right, as well as the duty, of
> criticism must not be
> stifled." Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250,
> 263-264, and n. 18
The above case is all about race and libel with no
reference to oaths. I point this out because case
cite references using, one or two sentences, are often
taken out of context.
Am I missing something?
Moderator/Bear: Yes you are. I made a comment to go with this. Did you not see it? The point is, if they work for the government they subject their actions, including the validity of their oaths, to scrutiny; they become "public property." Considering this, it is improper for the custodian of the oath to claim that the oath is not accessible to the public.
It's here! Your new message!
Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.