Thread: Do away with loyalty oaths

[b]Nobody asked anyone to become a state employee. If they have a problem with pledging loyality to the Constitution and defending California against all enemies, foreign and domestic, they can find another way to make a living. Just more rhetoric from those who have an agenda that may not be in the best interest of this state or nation. One more thing. How do "non-citizens" make up a "hefty" portion of public employees in this state? I would like to know the answer to that question.



Requiring state employees to swear loyalty to the Constitution is a relic.
March 14, 2008


Faced with a relic of the McCarthy era on one side and, on the other, a remedial-math teacher who wouldn't let the matter go, California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown did the sanest thing within his power. He provided written assurance that the teacher, a Quaker, would not have to bear arms as part of a loyalty oath. Now it's up to the Legislature to do the sanest thing within its power -- move to rid the state of the oath.

Marianne Kearney-Brown was rehired at Cal State East Bay, which had fired her for refusing to sign the oath required of California state and municipal employees, in which they swear in part to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Kearney-Brown is no monger of hatred against her country; she simply wanted to add the word "nonviolently" to the oath.

But the oath itself is a silly thing to require of public employees such as city park janitors and public school teachers. Most new employees just sign it with barely a glance as part of the pile of paperwork their employment requires. If they really intended to harm the state or nation, would they hesitate to sign a piece of paper?

The Levering Oath, named for the late Republican Assemblyman Harold Levering (from Santa Monica, whose politics he wouldn't recognize now), was adopted by the Legislature in 1950 and, two years later, passed by the voters as a constitutional amendment during a time of extraordinary fears about communism. Before, California had required a far simpler, more straightforward oath of office from public officials such as legislators and judges. Somehow, the state got along fine without demanding this extensive oath from its public employees, and it would have gotten along fine without it since.

The U.S. Supreme Court threw out part of the oath in 1967 because it unconstitutionally required signatories to give up their freedom of speech and association. That part is still in the state Constitution, but only the paragraph that withstood challenge is handed to new employees to sign.

One measure of the oath's uselessness: Noncitizens, who make up a hefty portion of public employees in the state, are of course exempt from signing. Obviously, the oath is not crucial togetting the state's work completed.

At a time when questions of patriotism and civil liberties are once again at the forefront of the public mind, the Levering Oath serves as a reminder that symbolic flag-waving mandates serve little use as anything other than rhetoric.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,1081874.story

Just another example of people with a "what about me" mentality that want the rules to be changed to fit them...

This was written about in the book The Third Wave by Alvin Toffler back in the 70's I believe, there about. Oaths would have to be abolished in order for the world to move closer to a one world order, to become a global community.

The book was akin to 1984 by Orwell, but written from more of a social-political view mixed with a world historical view.

Great read if you can find a copy.

I have a better idea, do away with the LA Times!!!

I have a better idea, do away with the LA Times!!!

One measure of the oath's uselessness: Noncitizens, who make up a hefty portion of public employees in the state, are of course exempt from signing. Obviously, the oath is not crucial togetting the state's work completed.

Who are non citizens--illegal immigrants or legal immigrants? If illegal aliens, the state should be charged with aiding, abetting and harboring illegals.

Why are non citizens public employees in the state? Public employees can include road construction, anyone working in a government office (sensitive material and government funded programs), driver licenses examiners, police, teachers, public health, state government inspectors, cooks, garbage collectors and a host of other professions.

Since so many 'public employees' are non citizens, an oath the the United States is more important than ever so why are they exempt from signing an oath to the country employing them? They can have 3 choices, sign a loyality oath, look for a job in another sector or go home to native land.

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power."
Franklin D. Roosevelt

The LA Times is MORE properly styled, the LA SLIMES!