The oath of office and what it means
“An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.””
*****************
Remember your oath.
Q
*****************
Q has told us there will be non civilian charges.
*****************
3934
Indictment Tracking Placeholders
Q
10 Apr 2020
[Placeholder - Indictments Tracking > Non_Civ]
[Set 1]
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
[Placeholder - Indictments Tracking > Civ]
[Placeholder - Acts of Treason + support Articles]
[Placeholder - Foreign Acts_pub]
[Placeholder - FISA_pub]
*****************
And that the derps will challenge it all the way to SCOTUS
*****************
2483
Supreme Court Rulings
11 Nov 2018 - 2:39:52 PM
[Placeholder - SC rulings re: challenges re: Civ Non_Civ]
[Placeholder - SC rulings re: USA v Def appeals]
*****************
Graham and Feinstein see the writing on the wall
*****************
Thanks for that. I was going to ask about congresspeeps but figured I’l click the link. Copying along with the oath that you posted just for completeness, plus it has the President’s oath of office. Very interesting, so all federal judges and both houses of Congress; wondering if all State legislators use this oath.
Federal employees, Representatives, Senators, judges, political appointees, the President and Vice President of the United States take an oath of office. So what does taking an oath mean? Why even do it?
The reason is simple – public servants are just that – servants of the people. After much debate about an Oath, the framers of the U. S. Constitution included the requirement to take an Oath of Office in the Constitution itself. Article VI of the Constitution says, “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” The Constitution does not prescribe the actual text of the Article VI oaths. For federal civil service employees, the oath is set forth by law in 5 U.S. Code § 3331, which reads as follows:
“An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.””
The President is also required by the Constitution to take an Oath of Office. Article 2, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution prescribes the Oath. It says, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
I believe military tribunals will be held, but that is NOT similar to MCM. The rules of evidence for CM are in line with Federal courts. Forget the majority of the NSA intel in that case. Feds officials working for the military are subject to the UCMJ already.
The PROCEDURES for CM are the basis of military tribunals and commissions, not thankfully the rules of evidence, nor are the charges limited to the punitive articles of the UCMJ.
CIVILIANS except as noted above are not subject to the UCMJ. Martial Law and proceedings under the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) will almost definitely include 'civilians' since the opposing side in this war are almost exclusively non-state actors resulting in them being UNLAWFUL COMBATANTS. Amongst the other things you can't do as a civilian even with Constitutional rights is wage war without state sponsorship or recognition. Those that do, are UNLAWFUL COMBATANTS IAW LOAC. Those are what Q is referring to. Not prosecutions under a system used for the discipline of the US armed forces and others noted in Article 2 of the UCMJ.
Kavanaugh wasn't questioned about the UCMJ, that discussion was about LOAC.
Sorry I won't do colored font, but I will yell in caps instead. Get it now.