Objection to oath has antiwar Tequesta (FL) man in legal limbo

[soup]

BY PAMELA PEREZ
Palm Beach Post

TEQUESTA - One man's refusal to take an oath of office he doesn't believe in has Tequesta on hold and the village mayor beside himself.

The village, in northern Palm Beach County, had planned to swear in newly elected councilman Basil E. Dalack tonight.

But it will wait until a federal judge rules in Dalack's lawsuit arguing that the oath implies support of the war in Iraq before it decides whether to fill the seat with someone else, Mayor Jim Humpage said.>snip<

>The controversy began last week when Dalack filed a lawsuit against the village demanding that the oath be reworded. The issue went before a federal judge at an emergency hearing Wednesday.

Dalack, who says he's a veteran, argues the oath is a public pledge of support for the war.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/14333502.htm

[WePurrsevere]

1. I'd like to see the exact wording of the oath he objects to. If it says...

'support, protect and defend' the government as is stated in the OP article I can understand his stance but because of the way it's quoted I'd like to see what the exact wording is after "support, protect and defend".

Actually I don't think one should swear to "support, protect and defend" a government per se... but should do so for ones country and the Constitution.

[soup]

3. here's the oath-

OATH OF OFFICE
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF _______________________
I, DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) that I will support, protect and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and of the State of Florida; that I am duly qualified to hold office under the Constitution of the State, and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of
____________________________________________________________________________
on which I am now about to enter, so help me God.
(1)
Signature
Date Signed

--

Constitution AND government - ought to be interesting.

I had to laugh at this bit in the article:

>>''The idea that it's an oath to act loyally instead of acting on one's belief makes me think it might be a little difficult for the court to strike it down,'' said Mark Tunick, a Florida Atlantic University political science professor. ``If he felt the words in the oath might imply that he supported a certain policy of government that, in fact, he opposes perhaps he could -- after taking the oath -- clarify what his position actually is.''<<

In other words: "Aw, shucks, just go ahead and say the words, then you can object."

[WePurrsevere]

9. Hmm... It's sort of like a contract so maybe he could cross out

"and Government" part, initial where he was crossed out and sign it with the note "with changes made"? I wouldn't sign or say it the way it's worded... as an elected representative I think my "duty" would be to my constituents, my country and most of all the US Constitution.

As I said before I don't feel that a person should have to swear allegiance to a "government" per se. It's perhaps using semantics but "government" could be construed as variable since it can change with who is in power... the Constitution OTOH is more fixed.

As for the Poli-Sci Prof... I guess he didn't bother to take (or attend) an Ethics course to go with his politics eh? ;)

edited to add: thanks for finding the exact oath. B-)

[anotherdrew]

16. so help me WHO? Which god? n/t

[ekelly]

17. Can'tr he just issue

.......a "signing statement"?

[OnyxCollie]

2. If he's opposed to swearing in an oath he can say (solemnly) "affirm". nt

[soup]

4. His objection is that he doesn't support the war,

so he doesn't feel he can swear (or affirm) that he supports the government.

[happyslug]

8. From the Article THAT is not the issue

The Issue is WHAT IS HE AFFIRMING (or Swearing) To? As a "state" Official he has to Swear an oath to Support the Constitution of the United States( See Article Vi, Clause 3 of the US Constitution):

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution;

Now technically as a local official the above does NOT apply, but most states require local officials to follow an oath along the same lines ie. "I support the Constitution of the United States and my home state". If that is all the oath is, he has to take it, if required by State Law, if there is something more then that is NOT required by Federal Law and my be prohibited under the First Amendment. Need for details on the oath to make an determination.

[FlaGranny]

5. "support, protect, and defend

the government" would be unacceptable. If that's what the oath says, then I agree with Dalack. The government is nothing but elected officials. The oath should say "support, protect, and defend the constitution."

I see the post above including the exact wording. I still think the word "government" doesn't belong in it.

[MostlyLurks]

6. Re: "government" in this context.

I'd just like to point out that, according to post #3, the oath uses a capitalized form of the word "Government". This could be taken to mean the concepts or basis of the American system of government and not the actual holders of office. Now, that's assuming post 3 has the exact wording 100% accurate, but that's how I'd take it: as an oath to uphold the tenets of democratic self-rule as embodied by the Constitution and not an oath of loyalty toward the people in office.

YMMV.

Mostly

[Godspeed_Democrats]

7. When I joined the Navy

the oath was close to being the same, but it did not say defend the government.

I will bet that was added within the last 10 years and no one made fuss. I would defend the constitution and America, but I wouldn't want to say gov. either.

[MostlyLurks]

10. Well, again, it goes toward interpretation.

I see what you're saying and I understand the sentiment, but I just take it a different way. If I'm pledging an oath to the "Government" (capital G), I don't have much of a problem with that, because, to me, that's an oath of loyalty to a particular idea that I happen to agree with. I don't think it's an oath to defend a particular person, party or official. Rather, I think it's a statement that, through your office or position, you won't seek to undermine democracy. It's not only the capitalization that makes me think that, but also the fact that it immediately follows reference to the Constitution, which establishes the tenets of American democratic rule.

But again, that's my interpretation and, since the oath is to be spoken, the capitalization issue is mitigated. So there's my morning waffle.

Were I taking the exact same oath, with the same capitalized "Government", in China, I'd have a problem because I would not be willing to defend totalitarianism.

Mostly

On Edit: Welcome to DU, Godspeed.

[ET Awful]

11. Ah, but using that interpretation, there is no need to include the word

Government, since the definition you attribute to the word is already contained in the Constitution. Thus, limiting the oath to simply the Constitution is sufficient, since the only legitimate Government is defined therein.

[soup]

13. There it is.

The man is a semi-retired appellate lawyer, who took the oath when first elected in 1999 with no objection.

I think he makes a good point.

[FlaGranny]

15. Years ago, when I worked for Civil Service,

I also had to make the oath - I promised to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. I don't remember ANYTHING about government.

If fact, with an extremist government, like the one we have now, the word Government in the oath opens up all kinds of possibilities for cracking down on people who disagree with the government.

[newyawker99]

18. Hi Godspeed_Democrats!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Godspeed_Democrats]

22. Thank you...

Looking forward to being in some friendly company. My office is 98% republican!!!


Ughhhhhh!!!:hi: :hi:

[Blue_Tires]

19. welcome to the site!

[Godspeed_Democrats]

23. Thanks!!!

:7 :7

[soup]

12. Sorry. I forgot to provide the source for the oath.

Note: It's an Adobe pdf file.
http://election.dos.state.fl.us/forms/pdf/dsde56.pdf

I used Google's html link:
short link

[FlaGranny]

14. I still like to draw the distinction,

because THE "Government" consists of elected people, who can be, as we all know, not worthy of loyalty. The Constitution is a whole different matter. It is the law of the land, which the government is duty bound to uphold. When the government disregards the Constitution, in any way, then it does not deserve support.

I totally see the plaintiff's point.

Edit: And I believe we agree. :-)

[LiberalFighter]

20. Wouldn't that be a Catch 22?

How can anyone support every elected official? Who decides which ones are to be supported?

[FlaGranny]

21. No, not a catch-22. It's actually easy

when you are working for some government official to know whether or not he or she is loyal to the Constitution. You have to use judgment. If your government employer is breaking constitutional law, you should NOT defend or be loyal to them.

[Up2Late]

24. Florida councilman won't swear support for US (Reuters)

(Man, this guy is "Hard Core!" Korean Vets ROCK!)

Florida councilman won't swear support for US

Thu Apr 13, 2006 08:00 PM ET

By Jane Sutton

MIAMI (Reuters) - A newly elected councilman in a tiny Florida village has refused to take an oath of office pledging support for the U.S. government because he adamantly opposes the war in Iraq. Councilman-elect Basil Dalack, 76, a Korean War veteran, won an uncontested election to fill a vacancy on the five-person council of the southeast Florida town of Tequesta.

But he is refusing to take the oath of office -- due to be administered on Thursday -- because the oath requires him to "support, protect and defend" the government. His decision comes at a time when polls show ebbing support for the war.

Dalack said he believes the U.S. war in Iraq is unjust and "an abomination." He said he could not sleep at night if he took a pledge implying blanket support for the U.S. government. "Those dead kids in Iraq, American kids and Iraqi kids, would haunt me," Dalack said.

He sued the village and asked U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks for an emergency order that the oath be reworded. On Wednesday, the judge refused, saying Dalack's suit was unlikely to succeed, but he gave Dalack and the village 25 days to present written arguments in the case.

(more at link)

<http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=11847822&src=rss/domesticNews>

[BrklynLiberal]

25. Courage of conviction!!!

[Ecumenist]

28. this fine American is a Korean War and damnit...

he's earned the right to speak out. I come from a family full of Veterans from WW1 up through this travesty in Iraq. I'm proud of this hero and he has proven his mettle.

[Ecumenist]

26. Wow, the entire country is in mutiny

It's about time... I'm not even sure if mutiny applies...The rest of the country is figuring out what we and others like us at DU have always known. :bounce: There seems to be a perfect storm brewing against this bunch and their nefarious plans and evil actions.:applause:

[Canuckistanian]

27. The answer is clear

Swear allegiance to the Constitution and it's principles. To hell with the resident of the White House.

[Ecumenist]

29. AMEN... period

[Erika]

30. How can anyone justify Iraqi deaths or those of our own troops

They can't. Good for him.

[MADem]

31. Another example of a misleading headline

The guy has no problem with the BASIS of our government, the CONSTITUTION, he just won't agree to blindly follow the asshats in power. The oath they are asking him to take is hideously worded--it demands allegiance to people as opposed to principles.

From another source:

He has sued the municipality in federal court to have the oath declared unconstitutional because he says it violates his right to free speech and denies him, without due process, his right to occupy his elective office. Dalack also wants the words “and government” removed from the oath so that a person doesn’t have to swear or affirm that he or she supports the government.

State law is very specific that if a public officer does not take and file his oath of office he in essence refuses to serve and vacates the office as a matter of law.

Dalack has stated that if he takes the oath, then he in essence is supporting the war in Iraq and the Bush administration which he does not do. He says that “no citizen of the United States should be required to swear to support the government” and that he refuses to support a government that has “immoral and unlawful policies”.

In order to change the wording of the oath of office, an amendment to the city charter would be required to be approved by city voters, an act which does not seem to have much support....During the March council meeting, Dalack had proposed a resolution calling for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for alleged war crimes. He also proposed a council resolution for troop withdrawal from Iraq.

http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/041106UnconstitutionalOath.html

I hope the ACLU jumps on this.

[Up2Late]

32. I don't mind this one, much better that the Palm Beach Post headline...

...and article. If you want to read a poor article, read this one: <http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/14333502.htm>

posted on Thu, Apr. 13, 2006

Objection to oath has antiwar Tequesta man in legal limbo

BY PAMELA PEREZ
Palm Beach Post

TEQUESTA - One man's refusal to take an oath of office he doesn't believe in has Tequesta on hold and the village mayor beside himself.

The village, in northern Palm Beach County, had planned to swear in newly elected councilman Basil E. Dalack tonight.

But it will wait until a federal judge rules in Dalack's lawsuit arguing that the oath implies support of the war in Iraq before it decides whether to fill the seat with someone else, Mayor Jim Humpage said.

''I am distraught at him for using the village as a springboard for his national issues,'' Humpage said. ``I have had a son in Iraq and another in Afghanistan. In my opinion, he is not representing his constituents. ... I think Mr. Dalack is doing a disservice to Tequesta. You should take your personal issues somewhere else.''

(more at link)

<http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/14333502.htm>

[soup]

33. Here's something odd...

>>Dalack's dispute has gained national attention and put the spotlight on this tiny waterfront community. Village officials said they have received roughly 25 phone calls a day since Dalack filed a lawsuit last week alleging the oath violates the Constitution. About a dozen e-mails on the matter were on file in the village clerk's office Thursday. None backed Dalack's position, although he says many people support him.<<
Palm Beach Post

Maybe it's because the contact info hasn't been posted.
Tequesta Contact Information
http://www.tequesta.org/contact.html

--

edit to fix link to article

[soup]

34. UPDATE - Dalack offers own oath, rebuffed

By Jennifer Sorentrue

Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

Friday, April 14, 2006

TEQUESTA — Under heightened security, Councilman-elect Basil E. Dalack arrived at Thursday's village council meeting armed with his own oath of office — one he believes in and will swear to uphold.

Dalack, who arrived and left the meeting in a police cruiser, refused to take the village's one-sentence oath, which he has said would amount to expressing backing for the Iraq War. Instead, he offered his own version, which would not require him to "support, protect and defend" federal and state governments.

"I am proposing peace," Dalack told the board. "You can choose peace, or you can choose to carry this on."

Village officials chose to not consider Dalack's oath. They have said they can't modify the village's current oath because it is part of the charter.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/politics/content/local_news/epaper/2006/04/14/s1b_dalack_0414.html

--

The article includes Mr. Dalack's proposed version of the oath.

Personally, I wish he had chosen to have the words "and Government" stricken from the oath, rather than (according to the PBP article) his choice of "commit to perform my public duties lawfully and respect the general republican structure of government." He would also vow to support the federal and state constitutions.

Wouldn't simply swearing to "support, protect and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and of the State of Florida" get the point across just as well?

--

on edit: After watching the audio slideshow at PBP, I don't see where Mr. Dalack said he wants to add "commit to perform my public duties lawfully and respect the general republican structure of government." ... I'd like to read his actual proposed oath.

[Up2Late]

35. Sounds like it's time for a March on TEQUESTA.

I'm pretty sure the "...and Government..." part of the Oath was added in the last few years under the so-called "leadership" of Jeb Bush, though it would be hard to find it in the Legislative archives.

The Man's right, No public official in The United States of America should be forced to pledge loyalty to "the Government!" That's just SOOOO un-American, it makes me want to spit.:mad: