These are just a few examples but notice what these oaths denote? The English and Australian oaths make clear that the ultimate goal is to support and follow the will of the monarch, while the Russian oath mentions the Constitution and then gives the president many other goals and jobs to do, such as safeguard rights, protect sovereignty and independence, faithfully serve the people and protect the security and integrity of the State.
In Russia, the entering president says: “ I swear in exercising the powers of the President of the Russian Federation to respect and safeguard the rights and freedoms of man and citizen, to observe and protect the Constitution of the Russian Federation, to protect the sovereignty and independence, security and integrity of the State, to faithfully serve the people”. In Australia, entering members of parliament say: “ I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law.
In England, this is what entering members of parliament say: “ I(name of Member) swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.“ Let’s look at a few examples from other countries first. But have you ever really listened to what they’re saying? Further, have you ever taken the time to contemplate how unique the oaths of office in America are when compared to those of other countries? Have you considered why the oaths say what they say…because the founders carefully selected the words for a reason. I’m sure you’ve heard the president or other members of government give their oaths of office before. System failure is not.I hope that the following realization is as impactful to you as it has been for me. democracy, it would not be a question that the election will be held on the first Tuesday of November in a designated year, or that the certification of the vote would proceed on the following January 6 th. This means that events prescribed by the Constitution like confirmation hearings, election administration and vote certification should take place safely and routinely. It should also include safety from a group of domestic terrorists invading the Capitol and sending lawmakers and their staffs hiding under tables.ĭefending national security also means preserving the effective functioning of the Constitution and ensuring that public leaders uphold their oaths to it. That includes protection from a nation state launching a nuclear weapon or from international terrorists flying passenger planes into skyscrapers.
PROTECT FROM ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC FREE
Americans should be able to live relatively free of fear of violence from threats, foreign and domestic, as a result. The United States spends close to a trillion dollars on defense, intelligence, homeland security and diplomacy. Protecting national security means that Americans should both be, as a practical matter, and feel, as a theoretical one, reasonably safe at home. Efforts by political actors to cast doubt on the outcome of the November 2020 presidential election, willingness to exploit American’s fears about their liberty by flouting science and public health guidance to protect against the spread of the pandemic, and renewed efforts to make it harder for underrepresented communities to vote, are the most recent examples of the toxic brew of nationalism and truth abandonment threatening the United States’s ability to thrive. democracy has always been a core national security interest it just didn’t necessarily need to be said out loud until the country entered 2021 facing the upending of American lives, families and democracy itself in the wake of the Trump presidency, its handling of the pandemic, and then the Januinsurrection.
While the written testimony from the intelligence chiefs provided a window into the breadth of hostile and malign activities from China, Russia, Iran and North Korea, as well as cross-cutting threats, this year’s hearing came across to this long-time observer as a warning of the limits of the intelligence community and affiliated national security institutions to protect the country from domestic efforts to undermine its own democracy. intelligence community outlined the most pressing national security threats facing the nation during testimony to the Senate and House intelligence committees.
0 kommentar(er)
