Robert Garcia, a newly-elected Democratic representative, has chosen the book upon which he will swear the oath of office, and it is not a Bible.
Like any other lawmaker, Rep.-elect Robert Garcia will swear his oath of office on a foundational text. He chose the US Constitution over the Bible or another religious book, and when the time comes, he’ll also take his oath with three sentimental items, including the first edition comic of Superman.
“I’ve read almost all genres, but Superman is always the character that stood out and spoke to me the most,” Garcia, a Democrat from California, told BuzzFeed News on Wednesday.
Reporters on Tuesday spotted the vintage comic book among the items laid out in the House of Representatives in preparation of the swearing-in of newly elected members. In a tweet, Garcia, who describes himself as a comic book nerd in his Twitter bio, acknowledged it was for him. He said he will be sworn in to Congress with the Constitution as well as a photograph of his parents, who both died during the pandemic; his naturalization paperwork from when he became a US citizen; and the first edition of Superman, which he borrowed from the Library of Congress.
I’m happy to see that someone chose something wholesome, rather than that archaic book of misogyny, racism, and violence. Immigrants have to stick together, too.
The Constitution would be worthwhile – if we ever actually followed it.
In a play by N F Simpson one character takes his oath in court on Uncle Tom’s Cabin.
Golden Age Superman fought union-busting business owners, corrupt politicians, and the KKK.
microraptor@3: “Golden Age Superman fought union-busting business owners, corrupt politicians, and the KKK.”
Yep. In his very first issue, that being Action Comics #1, Superman saved an unjustly convicted death row prisoner; stopped a wife-beating jerk; and decided he was gonna do something about a corrupt war-profiteering lobbyist.
“Truth, Justice and the American Way”
“One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn’t belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?”
Can I use V for Vendetta or is Alan Moore too British?
Well, one of his creators was a Canadian
If it is cool stuff, there will be a Canadian involved there, somewhere.
Bravo Congressman Garcia, Bravo.
I’d probably do mine on a Culture novel or a Star Trek script.
@4
Who’d of ever guessed. Superman, woke from the very beginning!
So the “oath of office” has to be sworn upon some “foundational text”?
(How quaint!)
@JM #12
It’s not required, you can simply swear the oath without any books. However, most elected officials do opt to swear their oath of office using some personally meaningful text.
How many times in a life does anyone have ceremonial access to any document or rare book held by the National Archives? IIRC, some Muslim congressional members have used Thomas Jefferson’s Koran, while Natives have chosen to swear in on a tribal law text.
The last time I had to swear for a Government job, I was given a choice to do it on a holy book or to “afirm and avow”. I chose the latter.
I hope they’re keeping a close eye on that comic. It’s worth over $100,000 and up to $5.2 million depending on condition.
Star Fleet Technical Manual, first edition.
[Yeah, I know. Just being a bit snarky.
But the quoted text has “Like any other lawmaker, Rep.-elect Robert Garcia will swear his oath of office on a foundational text.”
cf. this amusing video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFYRkzznsc0 ]
@ larpar :
Truth – because unlike the other tow it is at least theoretically possible to determine what the truth is objectively rather than subjectively with both “Justice” and the “American way” relying on subjective opinion? I.e. what some consider “Justice” will vary widely and individuals will have differing views on what constitutes the “American way” but the Truth can be objectively measured and discovered using science and logic and maths and evdence.
Or, I guess, you were thinking of the American way since rather than an abstract universal idea; the American way is restricted to a set of connected continents in the broader sense of the word and more usually taken as referring to only the USA’s national “way””which is raises of the obvious questions of what exactly is meant by that term – liberty and opportunity for all to pursue happiness? American culture and ideals generally? Capitalism, USA form representative “democracy”* and US political & cultural hegemony?
Actually, I guess if it could be both Truth and the American Way in this Odd One Out scenario then that eliminates them both and means the odd one out here has to be Justice by a process of elimination? Which, ironically, might arguable mean that Justice isn’t eliminated since it now could be the odd one out and so all three are, the same~ish, kinda and there IS no odd one out – except any one of those three by the logic already discussed above?
(/Sophistry?)
.* Which of course, as demonstrated by the Electoral College with the vastly disproportionate voting power it gives to people in smaller rural states like Wyoming vs larger, more urbanised ones like California thus denying a “One vote, One value” rule typical of legitimate Democracy arguably isn’t really a Democracy at all..(See again : https://www.huffpost.com/entry/its-time-to-end-the-electoral-college_b_12891764 )
Nah, the Electoral College only elects the President and the VP, and it has 538 electors. Each elector indeed has one vote.
(Hint: there are more elected officials than the P and the VP in the USA)
[OT]
Also, StevoR. Why do you take their claims at face value?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_in_the_Americas_by_population
Or: “the American Way” is a misnomer; it’s actually the USAnian way.
The USAnian way is to appropriate the demonym for itself.
@ ^ John Morales : The POTUS is the ehad of state -the leader oand effectiove ruler of the USA tho… so if the vote for the nations’s leader isn’t democratic then it isn’t reallya Democarcy is it? Settingasdie the complexituies of the Congress (which doesn’t work), the SCOTUS which POTUS’es get to pick, the gerrymandering and voter suppression etc ..
Which claims am I taking at face value and why woudn’t they be taken at face value btw?
^ Head of State, typos, apologies.
StevoR, ahem.
Australia does not vote for the nation’s leader; party members decide who is the leader. It follows Australia is not really a democracy, by your own claim.
(Don’t cast stones in a glasshouse)
Was I too subtle, again?
For one, that the American way is the USAnian way.
Not very democratic, that, is it?
They’re around a third of the population of the Americas, but say their way is the American way.
PS I write USA rather than US because, you know, Mexico (Estados Unidos Mexicanos).
@John Morales
Being a petty arse again, I see. Australia doesn’t have presidential government. The president in Australia doesn’t have any executive powers and is more of a figurehead, there to give military decorations and lead the country in times of war. What you want to look for there is prime minister. Unlike USA where president actually has executive power.
jo1storm:
With all due respect to your evidently intimate knowledge of petty-arsedness, I used the very same term that StevoR used. And I’m pretty sure he wasn’t referring to the King.
(Care to actually dispute what I wrote, instead of some straw dummy?)
Again: Australian citizens do not elect the Prime Minister, the Governor General, or the Monarch. Whichever you imagine is the Head of State (that would be the King).
Ah well, to actually contribute to the thread in spirit:
Except they do except for the Monarch, by voting for the party and/or coalition with them on top of the list:
We are not talking Head of State, we are talking head of executive branch.
In practice. Not in name.
In USA, that’s the president. In Australia, that’s Prime Minister.
jo1storm:
Voting for a party or for a coalition is not voting for a Prime Minister.
Nor is it voting for Governor General.
So, no.
See, the PM is head of government, but there need be no vote whatsoever among the populace — this happens regularly — in order to select a new one. That’s the point. It’s happened enough times in recent years! No voting.
As for who is the actual boss, put it this way; the PM can be dismissed by the GG, but the converse is not true.
BTW:
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis#Constitutional)
—
Ahem. What we are talking about is what is evident in the comments hitherto.
I repeat: “I used the very same term that StevoR used”.
And you damn well quoted me quoting him, so you should have known that.
Here, I’ve put emphasis on it for your apprehension:
—
Anyway, this is about the wondrous thing that swearing on things other than the Babble represents in the USA, not about Oz. Sorry for the digression.
Oh, I see. So it is how you define nation’s leader that you are petty arse about. Carry on.
jo1storm:
Again:
(1) It’s not how I define it; I used the exact same term as StevoR, remember?;
and
(2) you very clearly define the nation’s leader as the PM.
I’m happy to argue on that basis.
Fact is, the populace does not elect the PM, it elects MPs who then sort out between themselves how to choose a PM.
There is no such thing as a vote for PM in Australia; only a vote for MPs.
Once again: “Australia does not vote for the nation’s leader“.
Want to dispute that claim?
(Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Liberal_Party_of_Australia_leadership_spills )
At least in the USA they vote for Prez, and their votes then influence the actual Electors of the College whose votes actually determine who is the Prez.
Thus the recent shenanigans to choose an alternative electors over there.
There, I’ve carried on.
(It’s nice being correct; no need to bluster. You should try that sometime)
But they do elect PM. Indirectly. You can be certain that PM won’t be some random dude on the street, but one of the elected MPs. Right? Key word here is elected.
@23, Jhn Morales :
Why not? Its too hot already.. Let’s get some cooler air in..
Yes. Australia’s system has its issues and flaws. Time we became a Republic was decades ago already. Single member elctorates and safe seats and the GG and the f’n King of England as symbolic head’o’state and all.
Which systems is better tho’? Ours or the USA’s? I’d take ours anyday.
Assuming that’s what Superman meant by the “American way” which I don’t think he ever specified & as noted already in my #18.
I use USA over US preferentially because it avoids confusion with capitalised US vs THEM – the latter apparently being ants as opposed to giant aunts so ..yeah. fair enough. New World vs Old World tho’ somewhat archaic in useage may also be apt & a better option here.
I’d say the PM was our de facto head of state versus the symbolic, ceremonial GG & British hereditary Monarch. But again, long overdue we became a Republic and properly so. With maybe an First Elder chosen by our Indigenous People only in place of both GG & Britain’s King in my view.
True – but nor do we have the equivalent of an Electoral College which says the votes of, say, Tasmania, count for triple the votes of say Victoria. Even though our states and federal systems leave a lot to be desired and WA is, like, a third of our nation and all.. No, we could do with some changes but also no we ain’t nowhere near as bad and undemocratic and messed up as the USA. Also, we have an independent non-partisan elcetoral commission..
@32. John Morales :
Their votes “influence” .. but much more so by triple plus if they are living in f’n Wyoming than California, etc.. that seem fair & ok to you? Don’t to me.
I’d take our occassional Canberra bubble leaderspill spills even the SkyNews Coups over the shit Murdoch & his RepugliQons ull continuslally inthe US 0of A anyday,.
On a somewhat related note Thank Fk and the Aussie public’s rationality & sense that Scummo & his crew are now well and truly out of power and the toxic rotten potato unlikely to ever regain it.
^ Pull continously..