Ethics and Moral Requirements of Citizenship

[barts]

Part of the Oath of Office taken by the United States President is "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will ... to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate upon taking office swear, in part, "... 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...".

Does a citizen of the United States have the same duty--ethically, if not in law--as their President, Senators, and Representatives? If they do, as citizens, have a comparable duty, what are they morally obligated to do, if anything? Is doing nothing, aiding and abetting corrupt politicians who are not honoring their oaths? I believe it is.

It's very clear that very few (perhaps none) of the United States' federal office holders are honoring their oaths. Indeed, with few (perhaps no) exceptions they do not defend the "Constitution" in either law or spirit against "all enemies, foreign and domestic"; they, in fact, sell the power invested in them by voters to the highest bidder. The following 60 Minutes interview of Jack Abramoff is evidence of the complete disregard that US federal politicians have for their solemn oaths and just how corrupt most of them are.



Given that US federal politicians, from the President on down, neither honor their oaths of office nor represent the majority of US citizens what, ethically, is required of US citizens? What is the appropriate response for an honorable, ethical citizen when the majority of a nation's politicians traffic in corruption; when corruption informs almost every law and regulation passed, every tax collected, every expenditure, and every war?

Does US citizenship demand protecting one's fellow citizens and nation from "all enemies, foreign, and domestic" and preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution? In the United States, most federal politicians are irredeemably corrupted and are, therefore, "domestic enemies." Revolution, I would suggest, is the only ethical response to such enemies. How such a revolution might be made is for another thread.

[grandpa]

Part of the Oath of Office taken by the United
States President is "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that
I will ...
to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend
the Constitution of the United States."

"The question...is whether a sitting President is subject to the
regular compulsory criminal process--up to and including prosecution--
or whether impeachment is the only avenue available for addressing
Presidential wrongdoing?...
The answer provides insights into whether the President is subject
to the criminal
laws applicable to the citizenry of America. The answer also informs
whether a popular President--or a President whose party has a secure
congressional majority or a President whose value to other individuals
in office would make them reluctant to involve themselves in
impeachment proceedings--could ever be held accountable for violations
of the law.
Perhaps early in a term a President is alleged to have done
something, does the statute of limitations run, and if it runs before
the term is over and the Congress decides to turn its head, does that
mean there is absolutely no requirement that the President adhere to
the law, respond to the law, be involved and uphold the law in the same
way as other citizens are?"
http://books.google.com/books?id=nBO...ect%22&f=false

Grandpa h.

[barts]

"The question...is whether a sitting President is subject to the regular compulsory criminal process--up to and including prosecution--or whether impeachment is the only avenue available for addressing Presidential wrongdoing?...

This presupposes that the government fundamentally is not corrupt and that the "rule of law" is honored. That's not the case, today, in the United States, I submit. We can be confident that mast actions of federal politicians are taken in the service of those who have "bought" them with campaign donations and other considerations.

The United States no longer has a government that represents most American citizens. It represents those who make large campaign donations. That being said, does a US citizen have a moral obligation, as a consequence of citizenship, to actively oppose the Congressional and Presidential "domestic enemies"? I think they do.

[lsbskins1]

Did I fall asleep and miss when citizens lost voting rights in the US? Why the fuck would the mass of US citizens "rise up in revolution" and shed all the blood that entails when all they have to do is vote and remove those who are in office from office. I could see this line of reasoning if we were somehow prevented from voting or if our votes were somehow made irrelevant, but we have not been and they are not. If we rose up, and by force of arms, removed them all and still voted like idiots, we would have a new crop of idiots in for the next election cycle. The problem in the US is not the system, per se, it is the level of willingness of the citizens to let all that money convince THEM of untruths. What is good for GM is not necessarily good for the average citizen. The citizens themselves sell their votes. They sell them to the guy who promises them they can have all the services they want and not have to pay for them. They sell them to the guy who tells them that they are special because of where they were born, not because of how they reasonably exercise their own responsibility in the system. US citizens are too fucking lazy to MAKE government work effectively. Do you really think someone too fucking lazy to learn how the Senate actually works is going to be energized enough to hold the right people responsible when the system starts to fail, much less get their lazy asses off the couch and actually revolt?

And if our citizens are as engaged and as informed as they are willing to ever be right now, we have the damn government we fucking deserve.

I do agree that politicians and their staff members should NEVER be allowed to lobby.

[barts]

Did I fall asleep and miss when citizens lost voting rights in the US? Why the fuck would the mass of US citizens "rise up in revolution" and shed all the blood that entails when all they have to do is vote and remove those who are in office from office. I could see this line of reasoning if we were somehow prevented from voting or if our votes were somehow made irrelevant, but we have not been and they are not.

You seem to be blaming the victim. The US citizen's vote (which is not even a constitutional right) is woefully compromised. Where it's not actively taken away from them by state initiatives designed to disenfranchise voters, it is taken from them by gerrymandering, or the extreme advantage enjoyed by incumbents. Further compounding the problem is that in most instances the choice on the ballot is between equally corrupted candidates, each owned by corporations and wealthy individuals.

As well, the electoral system in the US all but insures that the rise of a responsible, ethical third (or fourth) party can never happen.

US citizens, quite rightly, have learned that for the most part their votes don't matter. Change is unlikely to come through the ballot box, but rather in movements like Occupy Wall Street or what we saw in the Civil Rights movement and the campaign for universal suffrage.

[lsbskins1]

I, for one, don't want proportional representation and/or 3rd, 4th and 5th parties. That cure is worse than the disease. It leads to coalition governments that are even more enslaved to the extremes. Thanks, but no thanks. I don't want to live with a bigger version of the Knesset, with the radical wings dictating bullshit like acceptance of continuing settlements and other such nonsense. Be careful what you wish for in the US...the Tea Party and the Objectivists would dance in and dictate every fucking thing. That shit kills the reasoned middle, it doesn't empower the reasoned middle.

And if the American public is victimized, it is because they are willing victims. They hate everyone elses asshole and love their own. In West Virginia, if you even pretend to understand the facts of the future of coal, your ass will be handed to you on a plate. If a powerful Senator got Kansas a completely useless and wasteful Naval base and died the next day, the people of Kansas would hand his replacement his ass if he said, "Holy Shit! Kansas is landlocked! It is stupid to have a Naval base here! Bad for the country, I won't fight if the Navy tries to close it." The fucking reason our votes have ceased to matter is because we do not use them wisely.

And, I would just like to point out...both the Civil Rights Movement and the ...ahem...suffrage movement were about THE RIGHT TO VOTE. How can you say that they were successful models if voting is useless? It is true that sometimes the people have to gather, en mass, and make a very vocal point outside of the voting booth, but that point is always backed by the very real threat of those people using the power of their vote to sweep away those resisting what they view as rational change.