one where the individual in office is more responsible for the lives of American citizens, or to uphold his/her oath of office even if it means Americans may be placed at risk?
"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."
While these would obviously coexist in most cases, it seems that in the case of explicitly authorizing the NSA to spy on American citizens who are in the US, specific actions taken in the desire to keep us "safe" from terrorists may be seen as violating or contradicting our constitutionally granted rights.
So, first off, Do you believe this specific action as contradicting with his sworn oath? If you do, do you feel that the POTUS was within his rights, explain why, if you don't tell us why not.
Please try to avoid any spurious "the ends justify the means" arguements here - I'm interested in whether or not you think he violated his oath of office, not whether or not you believe the action is justified by circumstances. Morality and ethics are not situational, and such justification is in my eyes a different discussion. We can have that discussion too, but perhaps in another thread. |
