Should Office holders who swear to uphold the Constitution, but do not support the Constitution be fired for conflict of

[eye state your name]

Originally Posted by Fundman

It's curious that you chose a Chicago official. Do you feel the same way about the Colorado Sheriffs who said they will not enforce Colorado's new gun control law? They took an oath to enforce state laws, but they seem to think they can pick and choose which state laws they will enforce.

If those Sheriffs did not take an oath to uphold the US Constitution you might be right, do you have a link to the actual oath that Sheriffs in CO are required to take?

[eye state your name]

Originally Posted by eye state your name

If those Sheriffs did not take an oath to uphold the US Constitution you might be right, do you have a link to the actual oath that Sheriffs in CO are required to take?

Found it myself. http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/busi...lable/OATH.pdf

Looks like the oath is to uphold the US Constitution and the CO State Constitution. Doesn't say anything about upholding laws that conflict with either Constitution.

[TheWiseWino]

Originally Posted by eye state your name

Found it myself. http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/busi...lable/OATH.pdf

Looks like the oath is to uphold the US Constitution and the CO State Constitution. Doesn't say anything about upholding laws that conflict with either Constitution.

It doesn't need to! The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes clear which document is superior. If there is a conflict between the U.S. Constitution, the laws enacted by the the Congress or the rulings of the Federal Judiciary and a state constitution, the former supersede the constitutions of any and all states.

It's pretty simple.

[steven_h]

Originally Posted by filihok

No.
Because the Constitution is able to be amended.

Do you think that anyone who has proposed an amendment to the Constitution is a traitor?

I don't think that's what the OP quite meant.

Maybe the question should be; why do they take the oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution if they do not agree with it? Aside from being disingenuous and a lie, THAT is a conflict of the public interest.

Amending the Constitution is no easy feat, which can only be done with a super majority. These politicians who aren't compelled to follow the Constitution based on their personal feelings (ideology) should be thrown out for shirking the responsibility of their office. If they take the oath, and then ignore that oath, THEY ARE TRAITORS!