Brian Ellis promises to violate oath of office if elected

[jct74]

“He’s got his explanations for why he’s voted, but I don’t really care.”

By WALTER OLSON
DECEMBER 16, 2013 12:32PM

Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), a figure well known to Catoites, is among the few members of Congress for whom the description “libertarian” does not seem like a stretch. Chair of the House Liberty Caucus, Rep. Amash is famous not only for his strong stands on behalf of limited government and for leading left-right alliances on such subjects as NSA surveillance but also for explaining publicly the reasons for each vote he takes in the House, which he seeks to derive from the language and principles of the U.S. Constitution.

...

Now the Weekly Standard is out with a piece by Maria Santos profiling the primary fight, which caught my attention with the following quote from Ellis:

“He’s got his explanations for why he’s voted, but I don’t really care. I’m a businessman, I look at the bottom line.” He has no use for Amash’s constitutional scruples, remarking, “If something is unconstitutional, we have a court system that looks at that.”

The first two sentences, at least as I would interpret them, basically amount to: “If you want someone to represent you who votes on principle and can explain his reasons, go ahead and stick with Justin because I don’t intend to decide on votes that way.” But it’s the follow-up that really caught me in mid-breath. As the House Clerk’s site explains, under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, each member of the U.S. House on assuming office takes an oath pledging to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States,” to “bear true faith and allegiance to the same,” and to “well and faithfully discharge” the office’s duties. There is a structural reason why the Constitutional oath is required of officers in the legislative branch, and not merely of those in the executive and judiciary. It is that lawmakers are just as capable of breaking faith with the Constitution as members of those other branches. The main way they do so is to vote, knowingly or through inadvertence, for bills that overstep its provisions.

In other words, it sounds as if Mr. Ellis has chosen to kick off his campaign by promising to violate his oath of office.

http://www.cato.org/blog/hes-got-explanations-why-hes-voted-i-dont-really-care

 

[jct74]

donate here:

http://amashforcongress.com/

 

[Ronin Truth]

Well the rest of Congresscritters already do it without the promise. So just go ahead, Goober. It's come to be expected.

 

[angelatc]

Well the rest of Congresscritters already do it without the promise. So just go ahead, Goober. It's come to be expected.

Yeah but most of them don't put it on their platform.

 

[Occam's Banana]

[...] I don’t really care. I’m a businessman, I look at the bottom line.

Things like this are precisely why the word "businessman" is so often used as a "dirty word."

Jackholes like Ellis brazenly admit that they have NO principles at all - and that they only care about how much money is going to end up in their pockets.

If something is unconstitutional, we have a court system that looks at that.

No we don't, you twit.

 

[jmdrake]

“He’s got his explanations for why he’s voted, but I don’t really care. I’m a businessman, I look at the bottom line.” He has no use for Amash’s constitutional scruples, remarking, “If something is unconstitutional, we have a court system that looks at that.”

The problem with ^that idiocy is that the court will often defer on certain constitutional issues to the executive and legislative branches based on the "political question" doctrine. The evil right hand washes the evil left hand.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/political_question_doctrine
Federal courts will refuse to hear a case if they find it presents a political question. This phrase is construed narrowly, and it does not stop courts from hearing cases about controversial issues like abortion, or politically important topics like campaign finance. Rather, the Supreme Court has held that federal courts should not hear cases which deal directly with issues that Constitution makes the sole responsibility of the other branches of government. Baker v Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962). Therefore, the Court has held that the conduct of foreign relations is the sole responsibility of the executive branch, and cases challenging the way the executive is using that power present political questions. Oetjen v. Central Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297 (1918). Similarly, the Court has held that lawsuits challenging congress' procedure for impeachment proceedings present political questions. Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993).