According to the Constitution of 1861, public officails had to pledge an oath of loyalty to _________?
480349
All current state officials were required to take an oath of loyalty to the Confederacy.
891866
Depends on what you have discussed in class, really.  ratified in 1789, so you could use that date, but if you have covered Martial Law being instituted by Lincoln in 1861... that makes it dicey.\nLincoln did NOT suspend the constitution during this time, but Martial Law DID suspend Habeas Corpus, and some view that as not allowing the Constitution to be fully utilized, so you could discount 1861-1866 if you are so inclined.
802888
The separation of church and state was a founding tenet in the Constitution because the founding fathers saw the abuses of the many religions when they held positions of power in the Old World. Many of our earliest immigrants came to this country to escape religious tyranny and oppression. It made perfect sense, in my view, that they would have included this amendment in the Constitution. This is especially significant, IMHO, considering many of the founding fathers were Masons.\nNothing has been miscontrued about the "intent" of the original amendment for 230 years. Now, all of a sudden, when theocratic radicals want to twist the original intent from what it was meant to be to their own narrow view of what it should be to them,  they scream that they alone know what the founding fathers intended and everyone else is wrong.\n I respectfully beg to differ.\n There is no surer way to fall into despotism than allow one religious group's views to be above another one's. All the theocratic radical needs to do is consider whether they would allow Buddhism, Islam, Hindu or any other religious sect have precedence over them. That is something I seriously doubt. Why then, would they expect others to accept their view as the only valid one? Hence, the reason for the second amendment.\n\nJefferson and Madison speak well for themselves:\n\n"The constitutional freedom of religion [is] the most inalienable and sacred of all human rights." --Thomas Jefferson: Virginia Board of Visitors Minutes, 1819. ME 19:416 \n\n"One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:382 \n\n"Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813. \n\nI believe Mr. Jefferson's intent is blaringly obvious in his own words. Transparently clear and to the point. As was James Madison's.\n\nJames Madison, Virginia Ratifying Convention\n\n12 June 1788Papers 11:130--31 \nThe honorable member has introduced the subject of religion. Religion is not guarded--there is no bill of rights declaring that religion should be secure. Is a bill of rights a security for religion? Would the bill of rights, in this state, exempt the people from paying for the support of one particular sect, if such sect were exclusively established by law? If there were a majority of one sect, a bill of rights would be a poor protection for liberty. Happily for the states, they enjoy the utmost freedom of religion. This freedom arises from that multiplicity of sects, which pervades America, and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest. Fortunately for this commonwealth, a majority of the people are decidedly against any exclusive establishment--I believe it to be so in the other states. There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it, would be a most flagrant usurpation. I can appeal to my uniform conduct on this subject, that I have warmly supported religious freedom. It is better that this security should be depended upon from the general legislature, than from one particular state. A particular state might concur in one religious project. But the United States abound in suc
577869
From The Constitution of the United States:\n\nArticle. II.\nSection. 1.\n\nBefore he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: \n--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."--\n\nI QUOTE "PRESIDENT" Bush :\n\nThe U.S. Constitution is "just a goddamned piece of paper,"      http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml \nhttp://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2005/091205pieceofpaper.htm\n\nThis Statement Is Impeachable In Itself, \nWith Strong Grounds For REMOVAL FROM OFFICE   \n\nArticle. IV\nSection. 4.\n\nThe United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall PROTECT EACH OF THEM AGAINST INVASION, and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE\n\nTo Answer Your Question - YES, The inaction concerning illegal immigration on the part of President Bush an impeachable offense\n******************\nIf NOT Impeached, Or Removed From Office\n\nFrom The BILL Of RIGHTS\n\nAmendment II\nA well regulated militia, being NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. \n\nAmendment X\nThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, Or TO THE PEOPLE\n****************************\n\n"To announce that there must be No Criticism of  the president, \nOr that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, \nis not only unpatriotic and servile, \nbut is morally treasonable to the  American public.\n— Theodore   Roosevelt\n*****************\nThe Military MUST, by THEIR Constitutional and Code requirements, obey LAWFUL ORDERS. It must be pointed out to them, and particularly the leadership, that it is REQUIRED OF THEM TO QUESTION WHETHER THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF IS MEETING HIS/HER obligations to use them in a lawful and truthful manner and to act in the DEFENSE and BEST INTEREST of this Country.
1080317
One with "under God":\nI pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to The Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.\n\nOne without "under God":\nI pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to The Republic for which it stands, one Nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
970728
Washington served as President under the Constitution.
704862
Here ... check this:\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance\n\nAnd here is one on the ACLU's challenging of a proposed law in Colorado (proposed by Republican Representative Bill Crane) to make reciting the pledge mandatory.\nhttp://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=3005\n\nAnd there are many state laws like this one (Washington state, passed, March 13, 1919):\n\n"Every board of directors of the several school districts of this state shall procure a United States flag, which shall be be replaced with a new one whenever the same becomes tattered, torn or faded, and shall cause said flag to be displayed upon or near each public school building during school hours, except in unsuitable weather, and at such other times as to said board may seem proper, and shall cause appropriate flag exercises to be held in every school at least once in each week at which exercises the pupils shall recite the following salute to the flag: 'I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the republic for which it stands. One nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.' "\n\n[1919 Washington State  Senate Bill 93, School Code Amendments, Section 4, Laws of Washington, Chapter 90]\n\n(Note that "under God" is not in that version of the Pledge ... that was added in 1954.)\n\nWhat does all that mean?  Well the laws *require* schools to lead children in the pledge.  Would a chlid be prosecuted if he/she declined? ... not by law.  But if enough students declined to participate, then technically the *school* could be sanctioned.  So the pressure on children would not come from the law, but from the school and the teacher.  \n\nAnd finally, saying that a 2nd-grader has the "First Amendment right not to participate" is all well and good ... but what 2nd-grader will go up against the peer pressure of his classmates, and so much as an angry glare from a teacher or visiting principal?\n\nBy the way ... can someone explain to me why "pledge of allegiance" doesn't literally mean "loyalty oath"?\n\nP.S. Rebecca ... your great aunt sounds like a great lady. Kudos.
1182529
Here you go:\n\n"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. \n\nSection 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,(See Note 15) and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. \n\nSection 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. \n\nSection 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. \n\nSection 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. "\n\n"The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the Thirty-ninth Congress, on the 13th of June, 1866. It was declared, in a certificate of the Secretary of State dated July 28, 1868 to have been ratified by the legislatures of 28 of the 37 States. The dates of ratification were: Connecticut, June 25, 1866; New Hampshire, July 6, 1866; Tennessee, July 19, 1866; New Jersey, September 11, 1866 (subsequently the legislature rescinded its ratification, and on March 24, 1868, readopted its resolution of rescission over the Governor's veto, and on Nov. 12, 1980, expressed support for the amendment); Oregon, September 19, 1866 (and rescinded its ratification on October 15, 1868); Vermont, October 30, 1866; Ohio, January 4, 1867 (and rescinded its ratification on January 15, 1868); New York, January 10, 1867; Kansas, January 11, 1867; Illinois, January 15, 1867; West Virginia, January 16, 1867; Michigan, January 16, 1867; Minnesota, January 16, 1867; Maine, January 19, 1867; Nevada, January 22, 1867; Indiana, January 23, 1867; Missouri, January 25, 1867; Rhode Island, February 7, 1867; Wisconsin, February 7, 1867; Pennsylvania, February 12, 1867; Massachusetts, March 20, 1867; Nebraska, June 15, 1867; Iowa, March 16, 1868; Arkansas, April 6, 1868; Florida, Ju
70308
The original point was after the civil war to get the confederates to pledge their allegiance to the united states.  The original purpose was for the individual to renounce the Confederacy.  Based on this, I would say no that it should not be restored to its original meaning.
254586
I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the republic, for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.\n\nAnd that's it.
900356
No.  But it was promised because of their complaints that the Consitution lacked basic protections.  It was drafted by James Madison
531123
For the people that don't know what that is:\n\nhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/\n The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.\n\nIt really is sad to see those soldiers fighting for freedom when freedom is being taken away.
980104
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.\n\nSection 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.\n\nSection 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.\n\nSection 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.\n\nSection 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.\n\n\nOk, nutshell explanation, anyone born on US soil is a natural-born citizen, as per Article I. Article II over-rides the previous statute of slaves being 3/5 of a person, now any male over 21 could vote, and representation in the House was adjusted to incorporate the possible influx of members due to the recalibration. Article III basically states that any member of a rebellion against the United States *cough Confederate States of America cough* can't hold any office, military of civilian, unless Congress overrules the disability with a 2/3 majority vote, on a case-by-case basis. Article IV states that the US won't pay reparations for lost slaves, or the CSA's debts. Article V is just there to say Congress will make states do this.\n\nIt's significance is this: Have you heard the term anchor-babies? An anchor baby is a child, born in America, to illegal alien parents, and the parents use the child to get welfare, get it an education, which the parents normally don't care about anyways, and whenever someone comes sniffing, say "They're an American citizen, don't split up our family!" As of the last Congress, there were proposals to alter Article I, to require that one parent must be a US citizen to make you a natural citizen, and if neither were, you weren't a citizen, and could be deported, with the parents, to the parent's home cou
1063612
Or this one:\n"I, George W. Bush, promise to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."\nto\n"The Constitution is just a damn piece of paper"\nto\nasking for a Constitutional Amendment all within 2 years.\n\nIt must be really difficult to protect something from yourself...
893768
the original ratio was suppose to be 1 for 30,000 people, however over time that has not been enforced. I'm unsure where and why at this point, but I do know it is not in line with the requirements of the Constitution.
919017
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nOath Of A U.S. Marine \n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n \n  \n  Enlisted:  I (state your name) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that 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 and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. \n\n\n\n \n  \n\nOfficer: I (state your name) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
511617
Nope. The laws in our country protect us from absolute authority... there have been a few ammendments added but for the most part, it's all we the people. Not just one person signs a bill around here... The declaration of Independance has multiple signatures on it.\n\n(would someone just tell that to our current President?)\n\nThe consititution is the closest thing we have to a "book of rules". Even that was put together and signed by multiple people from 12 different states:\n\nGEO WASHINGTON-- 1st Presidt. \n[Signed also by the deputies of twelve States.] \nJohn Langdon\nNicholas Gilman \nGeo. Read\nGunning Bedford jun\nJohn Dickinson\nRichard Bassett\nJacob Broom \nNathaniel Gorham\nRufus King \nJames MCHenry\nDan. of St. Thos. Jenifer\nDanl. Carroll \nWm. Saml. Johnson\nRoger Sherman \nAlexander Hamilton \nJohn Blair--\nJames Madison Jr. \nWil. Livingston\nDavid Brearley.\nWm. Paterson.\nJona. Dayton \nWm. Blount\nRichd. Dobbs Spaight.\nHu Williamson \nB. Franklin\nThomas Mifflin\nRobt. Morris\nGeo. Clymer\nThos. FitzSimons\nJared Ingersoll\nJames Wilson\nGouv Morris \nJ. Rutledge\nCharles Cotesworth Pinckney\nCharles Pinckney\nPierce Butler \nWilliam Few\nAbr Baldwin \nWilliam Jackson, Secretary