"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." ~~Thomas Jefferson

"Who will protect us from those who protect us?"

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. ~ Thomas Jefferson

"None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." ~~Goethe

09 March 2014

Something to hide...


My question is this...  Just as members of the military give up certain rights when they take The Oath, do politicians and government functionaries also give up certain rights when they assume the mantle of duty?  Does a politician have the right to lie to The People and commit crimes against The People, while serving The People, and then cover those lies and crimes by invoking the Fifth?

Do the individual rights guaranteed by the BOR pertain to politicians and apparatchiks when lying and committing crimes while performing in an official capacity?


KurtP said...


You get the same Constitutional protections you gave the Tea partiers you targeted.

Blue said...

Thank you! :)

Chris Mallory said...

The way it should work is any government employee who commits an act for which they need 5th Amendment protections, is no longer a government employee. We hear the cops whine about this all the time. "I have to testify for the shooting board(or who ever is rubber stamping the cop's actions), or I get fired." Cool, if you can't testify without being arrested, then you should lose your job.

Blue said...

Chris Mallory... Agree 100%

I believe that they should be held criminally liable for violations of their oath. She should be held in contempt and prosecuted for that contempt. Holder should be prosecuted for his contempt.

It is pointless to find these people "in contempt of Congress" and then refuse to follow through with the investigation and prosecution phases. The phony politicians who bring the charges think we are stupid enough to believe that the the un-prosecuted charges mean something substantial.

Robert Fowler said...

In 1821, the Supreme Court upheld Congress’s right to hold people in contempt and imprison them. Without this power, the court ruled, Congress would “be exposed to every indignity and interruption, that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it.” Later, in a 1927 case arising from the Teapot Dome scandal, the court upheld the Senate’s arrest of the brother of a former attorney general — carried out in Ohio by the deputy sergeant at arms — for ignoring a subpoena to testify.

They should be filling the jail cells they have in the basement.

Blue said...

Robert... "They should be filling the jail cells they have in the basement."

I agree, totally.

I still ask the question, should government officials who break laws and tell lies while working in their official capacities (not as individuals) be afforded the full protections of the BOR?

We must remember that the BOR was created to protect the rights of the individual from the government.

We must also remember, as an example, that when one joins the military (and becomes part of the government) he gives up all or parts of some of the rights afforded the (private) citizen under the BOR. Parts of the First, Second, and Fourth come immediately to mind.

The question still burns in my mind... Should a government apparatchik who violates the laws of the land while acting in an official capacity be afforded those protections outlined in the BOR that were intended to protect the individual from his government?

Doesn't make sense to me.

KurtP said...

They ARE the government- with the weight of the government enforcing whatever whims they want on the people.

Blue said...

Yup. Right, wrong, or otherwise... :)