According to the White House, John Brennan was sworn in as CIA Director on a first draft of the Constitution including notations from George Washington, dating to 1787.

Vice President Joe Biden swears in CIA Director John Brennan in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, March 8, 2013. Members of Brennan’s family stand with him. Brennan was sworn in with his hand on an original draft of the Constitution, dating from 1787, which has George Washington’s personal handwriting and annotations on it.

That means, when Brennan vowed to protect and defend the Constitution, he was swearing on one that did not include the First, Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendments — or any of the other Amendments now included in our Constitution. The Bill of Rights did not become part of our Constitution until 1791, 4 years after the Constitution that Brennan took his oath on.

I really don’t mean to be an asshole about this. But these vows always carry a great deal of symbolism. And whether he meant to invoke this symbolism or not, the moment at which Brennan took over the CIA happened to exclude (in symbolic form, though presumably not legally) the key limits on governmental power that protect American citizens.

Update: Olivier Knox describes how the White House pushed the symbolism of this.

Hours after CIA Director John Brennan took the oath of office – behind closed doors, far away from the press, perhaps befitting his status as America’s top spy – the White House took pains to emphasize the symbolism of the ceremony.

“There’s one piece of this that I wanted to note for you,” spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters gathered for their daily briefing. “Director Brennan was sworn in with his hand on an original draft of the Constitution that had George Washington’s personal handwriting and annotations on it, dating from 1787.”

Earnest said Brennan had asked for a document from the National Archives that would demonstrate the U.S. is a nation of laws.

“Director Brennan told the president that he made the request to the archives because he wanted to reaffirm his commitment to the rule of law as he took the oath of office as director of the CIA,” Earnest said.

Amid Republicans' weeks-long display of sound and fury, President Obama nominated Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense and John Brennan for CIA director.

At the moment, Hagel is being touted as the more controversial nominee by the Republicans. Log Cabin Republicans, who endorsed a virulently anti-gay candidate for President in Mitt Romney, are protesting Hagel's 1998 comments regarding the military's don't ask, don't tell policy, and put up a full page ad in the New York Times today opposing his nomination. On the other hand, neocons are outraged that Hagel isn't completely in the tank to blow up the world to save Israel.

All of this would be comical if it weren't so pathetic. After all, in 2000, Mr. Neocon Bill Kristol thought Hagel would be a perfect running-mate for then-candidate George W. Bush. Now that Hagel is Obama's choice, not so much.

Hero to zero politics at its best. Meanwhile, war hero Max Cleland says they'll quit the posturing and confirm Hagel. As much as I'd like to believe that, I have no confidence in Republicans' ability to scale down their insanity these days. The truth is, they'd oppose anyone Obama nominates, but Hagel scares them most because he's a Republican who isn't a neocon hawk or a policy elite.

John Brennan, on the other hand, is a more troublesome nominee. Salon's Alex Seitz-Wald has a must-read column about why his nomination for CIA is troubling:

In his current job, for example, Brennan has spearheaded some of Obama’s most controversial national security tactics, such as the aggressive escalation of drone strikes and so-called signature strikes, where targets are hit based on incomplete intelligence. He’s also caught flak for claiming drone attacks didn’t result in a “single” civilian death in Pakistan one year and for initially (and erroneously) claiming that Osama Bin Laden “engaged in a firefight” with Navy SEALs during the 2011 raid in which he was killed.

In 2008, liberals and civil libertarians were outraged by the possibility of Brennan heading the CIA. “Appointing Brennan to the CIA does not mean a change from Bush. That was absolutely a critical part of Obama’s message. With Brennan, we get the taint of a Bush and two-facedness of a Clinton,” Andrew Sullivan, then at the Atlantic, wrote at the time.

Four years later, civil liberties have largely disappeared from the range of issues liberals care about. Two weeks ago, the Senate quietly reauthorized the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendment Act — which codifies warrantless wiretapping and email snooping — with little debate and no amendments.

I'm sure the confirmation hearings will be a hoot. Republicans are already on the bizarro train, so it could be entertaining. Or frightening.