Sovereigns Without Subjects
- View SourceTo get things wright..er right...I think you refer to the Chisolm case:
Not Wright vs Georgia
[Bear the moderator: Absolutely! I stand corrected.]
The oath Bob refers to is patterned after the Art II oath of a President
of the United States. There is no sense in taking an oath to defend a
piece of paper....
[Bear the moderator: A piece of paper containing high sounding principles?]
but there is sense in defending the Constitution of the
United States; the territory and other property owned by and ceded to the
United States of America.
The bond servant is an employee and in the case of Art II oath, the
employer is Congress. Notice this oath is stuck in the middle of the
document while the Art VI oath for ALL is near the end.
I would like to believe that by his taking of an oath to support and
defend the Constitution, they(the public servant) voluntarily become
what is in essence an indentured servant, or possibly even a bond
servant. The reasoning here is there is no higher authority than the
sovereign, with, or without subjects.