[RealJustme]

Joe Biden swore in CIA Director John Brennan at the White House, today. Brennan had a special request that he be sworn in on a draft of the Constituion dated 1787 which didn't include the Bill of Rights rather than the current Consitution. The current Constitution went into effect in 1789.

Missing from the Constitution in 1787 that Brennen swore to abide by is: The Bill of Rights, which did not go into effect until December 1791 after ratification by states. That means Brennan asked to be sworn in (and his request was granted) on a document that doesn't include freedom of speech and of the press, right to bear arms, Fourth Amendment ban on “unreasonable searches and seizures,” and right to a jury trial.

The question is why did Brennen want to be sworn in a draft Consitution that doesn't include the Bill of Rights instead of our current Constitution and why was that request granted.

What the hell is happening in our Government?

It's like our Government telling us they have no intention of using armed drones on Americans but ordering over 1,000 of them for Homeland security. Why order them if there is no intention of using them...do we have that much money laying around to order over $400 million in weapons we have no intent on using?

[DarknLadyJedi]

I don't see a problem with it.

He was sworn in on an original, so it didn't have the first 10 Amendments, big deal. It did have the rule for how to make them.

And that's the important part, not if it had the first 10 Amendments. Would you be upset if it had the first 10 but stopped there? I mean, that would have meant it didn't have the 22nd limiting the President to 2 terms, or the 13th abolishing slavery.

[RealJustme]

He was sworn in on an original, so it didn't have the first 10 Amendments, big deal. It did have the rule for how to make them.

He was sworn in a "draft" that was determined to be lacking in Constitutional rights for citizens therefore was modified before being finalized. That means, when Brennan vowed to protect and defend the Constitution, he was swearing on one that did not include the First, Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendments — or any of the other Amendments now included in our Constitution. Today's Government employee's should be more concerned with what our current Consitution requires, there's a reason the Bill of Rights was added. I'm sure he and Obama got a giggle out it.

[Leroy]

They key part is that the Draft version doesn't contain the Bill of Rights.

It's symbolic of the Obama Administration to appoint people that don't believe in: No freedom of speech and of the press, no right to bear arms, no Fourth Amendment ban on “unreasonable searches and seizures,” and no right to a jury trial.

[elklindo69]

And the nutjobbery of the right wing rolls right on along...

[Leroy]

And the nutjobbery of the right wing rolls right on along...

Ask yourself why he picked that Draft document, it's not been used by ANY OTHER to be sworn in. When you figure out why he picked it you will understand the problem with it.

[RealJustme]

Imagine if a judge or any other official asked to be sworn in on a draft Constitution "with out" the Bill of Rights in it. First they would be asked why they don't think the Bill of Rights is important to their oath, then they would be told that they are taking an oath to uphold our current Constitution not one which is out dated therefore unconstitutional.