Pledge of Allegiance vs. Constitution?

[conus00]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

Interesting question. That it is asked by a current non-citizen, studying to become one, makes it all the more relevant.

It is this look from the outside which allows us to constantly have a re-look at ourselves. The best reason for immigration I can think of.

I don't know the answer because I'm too close to myself as a citizen.

Thank you for asking the question.

You are welcome. One of the ways how we improve ourselves is being questioned by others. On different (but related subject) you should take a look at this: http://usgovinfo.about.com/blinstst.htm

It is the list of questions required for U.S. citizenship test. It might be little bit outdated but it will give you an idea. I believe that majority of U.S. citizens would flunk the test. My g/f (smart and born and raised American) didn't know the answers to approx 1/3 of the questions.

[Penguin]

While reading about the POA I was astonished that it was state law to recite it - at least in Florida . I always thought it would be voluntarily with most students saying it out of tradition, conviction and/or peer pressure.

While I want to leave the constitutional discussion to the Americans, reading the oath of allegiance raises a new question:
Why does it explicitly mention a prince? Wouldn't he already be covered by potentate or sovereignty? Or did the US had some beef with a prince at the time the oath was introduced?

Why does it explicitly mention a prince?

Was there a prince named flag, and the republic it stands for?

Ultimately it is an oath to a republic.

[Takeda Shingen]

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Please excuse me while I take a short detour down nostaligia lane. <sigh>

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

Was there a prince named flag, and the republic it stands for?

Ultimately it is an oath to a republic.

I was asking about the oath of allegiance which the OP cited in post #7

Originally Posted by Penguin

I was asking about the oath of allegiance which the OP cited in post #7

Oh, now I see what you're getting at. Fortunately that is not the US pledge.
Ours proclaims the supremecy of the republic, not one individual.

[Penguin]

yep, but "prince" is basically covered by the terms "sovereign" or "potentate", that's why I was wondering why particularily "prince" - if you want to specificaly adress monarchy, the term "monarch" would be more fitting

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by Penguin

yep, but "prince" is basically covered by the terms "sovereign" or "potentate", that's why I was wondering why particularily "prince" - if you want to specificaly adress monarchy, the term "monarch" would be more fitting

Maybe because some states are technically "principalities" and ruled by princes? I'm thinking of Monaco, for example.

I don't know the protocol for slapping labels on dynastic heads of state, maybe there's some kind of technical difference between a prince and a potentate and they didn't want to leave any loopholes.

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by Penguin

While I want to leave the constitutional discussion to the Americans, reading the oath of allegiance raises a new question:
Why does it explicitly mention a prince? Wouldn't he already be covered by potentate or sovereignty? Or did the US had some beef with a prince at the time the oath was introduced?

The "oath of allegiance" quoted above and the "pledge of allegiance" to the flag are two different things.

The former is taken by someone who is not a citizen of the US, but is about to become one. In order to be sworn in as a US citizen, he/she must renounce all prior claims of citizenship or subjecthood to any foreign government, power, or ruler. Some foreign nationals are subjects of a monarch who is considered the head of state in their country of origin.