Posted on 07/25/2008 3:49:49 PM PDT by Amityschild
Except for that little "if".
Well not necessarilly. While the oath of enlistment requires obeying orders, the oath that officer's take does not. Both require supporting and defending the Constitution against *all* enemies, foreign and *domestic*. Even the enlistment oath only requires obeying *lawful* orders at least by implication.
First the enlistment oath:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
Then the officer's oath:
"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
We are a nation who once elected a man because he was humble and honest -- Grover Cleveland. We have since come to love the arrogant and gilded tongue.
True, but taking an oath does focus one's thoughts. Both in the "Am I really serious about this endeavor?" (my reaction lo those many years ago), and a reminder as to one's ultimate duty.
Also, God's law tends to be interpreted differently by different people. Sorry, that's just the way it is. A common oath helps develop a common ethos. It only helps, because the uncommitted or unrighteous can mouth the words without hearing or meaning them.
Well there is one venue that counts even more than the courts. The minds of the electorate.
Affecting the electorate is worth the attempt and the bother. Even if it fails the effort must be made. You're never going to defeat Barry Hussein on the issues, because he'll flip and flop and say what he needs to say, while the MSM does their best to hide his previous positions and his associations.
Yet I am frustrated that more public voices on that claim to be wise on the Constitution are yapping about Obama's polls as if they are important, and the same ignore or deride any questions about his meeting the basic Constitutional requirement, requested by George Washington, that a President be "natural born".
Obama does not seem to met that basic requirement and deafening silence is heard on the issue. What oath to the Constitution would matter if even the masters of the day of it think polls are more important, or worse -- do NOT even know how to think about the Constitution and so rely only on the wisdom of the mob and the intellect of the pop media.
It was for emphasis, but I usually refrain from large print except for those of us with eyes “of a certain age.”
Okay by you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.