There is the situation where defending the Constitutional order against a clear threat most effectively demands actions that are questionable impinge on some rule of the Constitution, in that case, its at least arguable that working right up to the limit -- and perhaps even testing the limit -- is demanded.
Clearly, gratuitously testing the limits of the Constitution is not demanded by the oath, but I don't think that that's the claim Comey was making. (Note, I'm not saying that I agree that this is a case where a rational expectation of the value of breaking into the phone in question to protecting the U.S. and its Constitutional order does justify testing the limits of law enforcement authority, I'm just pointing out that its not unreasonable to think that there are situations in which upholding the oath might reasonably be seen to require testing the boundaries of Constitutional authority.)
> There is the situation where defending the Constitutional order against a clear threat most effectively demands actions that are questionable impinge on some rule of the Constitution, in that case, its at least arguable that working right up to the limit -- and perhaps even testing the limit -- is demanded.
Which, while technically correct (The Best Kind Of Correct), isn't the sort of thing the FBI runs into very often. Because the FBI is not constitutionally obligated to succeed in apprehending every criminal. If the FBI wanted to embody the principle of letting 10 guilty men go free before convicting one innocent then they would in practice run into a lot fewer prickly constitutional edge cases.
I think it's a good thing my doctor doesn't stab me in random places to defend my health. There might be some case where that's good medicine but I'm having a hard time with concrete examples.
Clearly, gratuitously testing the limits of the Constitution is not demanded by the oath, but I don't think that that's the claim Comey was making. (Note, I'm not saying that I agree that this is a case where a rational expectation of the value of breaking into the phone in question to protecting the U.S. and its Constitutional order does justify testing the limits of law enforcement authority, I'm just pointing out that its not unreasonable to think that there are situations in which upholding the oath might reasonably be seen to require testing the boundaries of Constitutional authority.)