Wrong, wrong, WRONG!
No soldier is sworn to serve the government. Period.
I'll prove it, too:
| Oath of Enlistment National Guard portions in blue. |
|---|
| I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (STATE NAME) 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 Governor of (STATE NAME) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, ☀ according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. ☀ according to law and regulations. So help me God. |
| Oath of Office [for military officers] |
| I, [name], 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. |
| Additional Oath for Officers in the National Guard |
| I, [name], do solemly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of [STATE/COMMONWEALTH/TERRITORY] against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of [STATE/COMMONWEALTH/TERRITORY], that I make this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the Office of [grade] in the (Army, Air) National Guard of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of [STATE/COMMONWEALTH/TERRITORY] upon which I am about to enter, so help me God. |
This is also born out by the terminal clause about lawfulness of orders, the Constitution is the Supreme Law and any law or regulation or order contrary thereunto is illegal. It can therefore be said that all these military oaths begin and end with the Constitution.
Furthermore
MILITARY AUTHORITY
Authority is defined as the right to direct soldiers to do certain things. Authority is the legitimate power of leaders to direct soldiers or to take action within the scope of their position. Military authority begins with the Constitution, which divides it between Congress and the President. The President, as commander in chief, commands the armed forces, including the Army. The authority from the Commander-in-Chief extends through the chain of command, with the assistance of the NCO support channel, to the squad, section or team leader who then directs and supervises the actions of individual soldiers.
The Seven Army Values (LDRSHIP)
According to the Army (via GTA 22-6-2)
As expounded upon by the University of Cincinnati's ROTC:
Loyalty
Loyalty is bearing witness to your allegiance to the US Constitution and its ideals, to the Army, to your unit, to your fellow Soldiers and subordinates, and to yourself as an Army professional. Loyalty means placing your professional obligations and commitments before your personal ones. It means dedication to carrying out all of your unit’s missions and to serving faithfully the values of the country, the Army, and your unit.
Duty
Duty involves fulfilling all of your professional, legal, and moral obligations and accomplishing all tasks to the fullest of your ability. Duty means accepting responsibility for your actions and those of your subordinates. Doing your duty prohibits engaging in illegal and immoral actions. Duty also requires your disobedience of unlawful orders— those that run counter to the Army’s doctrine, standard practices, and values.
Respect
As an Army officer, you are charged with promoting dignity, fairness, and equal opportunity for others. Respect means treating people as they should be treated and as you expect to be treated. It requires having regard for others’ well-being, feelings, and needs.
Selfless Service
Selfless service means placing Army priorities before your own. You consider the welfare of the nation, your mission, and your fellow Soldiers and subordinates before your personal safety. Selfless service means a willingness to sacrifice for the country, the Army, and your unit. This does not mean that you forget about the needs of your family or yourself. Selfless service prevents a narrow, ambitious focus on careerism for gain or glory. This value guides you in giving credit where credit is due and sharing your successes.
Integrity
Integrity means “completeness” and “wholeness.” Integrity leads you to unity and consistency in your principles, values, and behavior. It requires you to be candid and sincere with your peers, subordinates, and superiors. Integrity calls upon you to be honest and honorable in word and deed at all times.
Personal Courage
A wise leader once said that courageous people are afraid, too—they just hold on for a minute longer. You can exhibit two types of courage. Physical courage enables you to face fear, danger, and adversity in any situation. Moral courage means acting with honor, respecting others, and taking responsibility for your actions and decisions. In the Army, you get a medal for acting bravely. But decorations are merely cloth and metal symbols of your inner strength of character that leads to courageous acts.
I could cite much, MUCH more but I think this is enough to say, conclusively, that the Lt. Col is acting honorably.
If you choose to disagree, then I invite you to find documented proof to present, which invalidates the above.
Works for me. By virtue of the 12th Amendment, Mr. Obama is the President. I don’t particularly like that unfortunate fact, but there it is and there it will be until he is either impeached or defeated in 2012. I don’t think impeachment will happen, though a decent case can be made that it should.
Any officer who rises up against the President will be violating his/her oath to protect and defend the Constitution. If they want to do that, they should first resign their commission.
Thanks for pinging and all the information you posted. I haven’t been following closely and your info helps.
I was referring to a specific quote from a poster who spoke ridiculously of another poster watching Obama burn the Constitution and piss on its ashes, and then assisting Obama in the execution of any officer who disagreed. I was making a point that it is, in fact, a deliberate insult to use such phrasing to describe the relative moral awareness of a military officer.
Obviously, if Obama has burned the Constitution and invited everyone over to watch him piss on its ashes, he is overtly overthrowing the entire United States government. For such a ridiculous postulation, the term “government” is used in lieu of the Constitution from which it derives to describe the obvious totality of actions to which no military officer could be oblivious.
Thank you for your obtuseness.
The language in what you just posted makes me proud of our military. The behavior of people like Lakin make me proud of the people who serve in our military.
The lawyers who parse the technicalities in order to claim the opposite of what you posted make my stomach hurt.
It’s honor and truthfulness versus the corrupt political machine. Just like in Washington DC.
I have two nephews in the USMC now; one was commissioned last spring and the other left for boot camp on Sunday. They and all the other honorable men and women who make these oaths deserve better than the corrupt political machine. They deserve a chance to fulfill the oaths they made.
I disagree. How can deliberately disobeying the orders of his superior officers possibly be defined as well and faithfully discharging the duties of the office on which Lakin entered?
Absolutely! I find it remarkable that so many service men on here think that they are duty bound to follow any order handed down through the chain of command from the Commander in Chief if they believe his order or himself to be illegal....there is NOTHING that substantiates such a claim!
Lieutenant Colonel Lakin is charged with Article 87 (missing movement) and Article 92 (failure to obey a lawful order) violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It will be up to a military panel (jury) composed of fellow service members to decide whether or not he did in fact violate those two articles. His reasons for allegedly violating a lawful order and missing movement will be taken into account in sentencing IF and I repeat IF he is convicted by a jury of his military peers.
Here are the specifics of Article 92.
Article 92: Uniform Code of Military Justice
“Any person subject to this chapter who—
(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
Elements.
(1) Violation of or failure to obey a lawful general order or regulation.
(a) That there was in effect a certain lawful general order or regulation;
(b) That the accused had a duty to obey it; and
(c) That the accused violated or failed to obey the order or regulation.
(2) Failure to obey other lawful order.
(a) That a member of the armed forces issued a certain lawful order;
(b) That the accused had knowledge of the order;
(c) That the accused had a duty to obey the order; and
(d) That the accused failed to obey the order.
(3) Dereliction in the performance of duties.
(a) That the accused had certain duties;
(b) That the accused knew or reasonably should have known of the duties; and
(c) That the accused was (willfully) (through neglect or culpable inefficiency) derelict in the performance of those duties.
Explanation.
(1) Violation of or failure to obey a lawful general order or regulation.
(a) General orders or regulations are those orders or regulations generally applicable to an armed force which are properly published by the President or the Secretary of Defense, of Transportation, or of a military department, and those orders or regulations generally applicable to the command of the officer issuing them throughout the command or a particular subdivision thereof which are issued by:
(i) an officer having general court-martial jurisdiction;
(ii) a general or flag officer in command; or
(iii) a commander superior to (i) or (ii).
(b) A general order or regulation issued by a commander with authority under Article 92(1) retains its character as a general order or regulation when another officer takes command, until it expires by its own terms or is rescinded by separate action, even if it is issued by an officer who is a general or flag officer in command and command is assumed by another officer who is not a general or flag officer.
(c) A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it. See the discussion of lawfulness in paragraph 14c(2) (Article 89).
(d) Knowledge. Knowledge of a general order or regulation need not be alleged or proved, as knowledge is not an element of this offense and a lack of knowledge does not constitute a defense.
(e) Enforceability. Not all provisions in general orders or regulations can be enforced under Article 92(1). Regulations which only supply general guide-lines or advice for conducting military functions may not be enforceable under Article 92(1).
(2) Violation of or failure to obey other lawful order.
(a) Scope. Article 92(2) includes all other lawful orders which may be issued by a member of the armed forces, violations of which are not chargeable under Article 90, 91, or 92(1). It includes the violation of written regulations which are not general regulations. See also subparagraph (1)(e) above as applicable.
(b) Knowledge. In order to be guilty of this offense, a person must have had actual knowledge of the order or regulation. Knowledge of the order may be proved by circumstantial evidence.
(c) Duty to obey order.
(i) From a superior. A member of one armed force who is senior in rank to a member of another armed force is the superior of that member with authority to issue orders which that member has a duty to obey under the same circumstances as a commissioned officer of one armed force is the superior commissioned officer of a member of an-other armed force for the purposes of Articles 89 and 90. See paragraph 13c(1) (Article 89).
(ii) From one not a superior. Failure to obey the lawful order of one not a superior is an offense under Article 92(2), provided the accused had a duty to obey the order, such as one issued by a sentinel or a member of the armed forces police. See paragraph 15b(2) (Article 91) if the order was issued by a warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer in the execution of office.
(3) Dereliction in the performance of duties.
(a) Duty. A duty may be imposed by treaty, statute, regulation, lawful order, standard operating procedure, or custom of the service.
(b) Knowledge. Actual knowledge of duties may be proved by circumstantial evidence. Actual knowledge need not be shown if the individual reasonably should have known of the duties. This may be demonstrated by regulations, training or operating manuals, customs of the service, academic literature or testimony, testimony of persons who have held similar or superior positions, or similar evidence.
(c) Derelict. A person is derelict in the performance of duties when that person willfully or negligently fails to perform that person’s duties or when that person performs them in a culpably inefficient manner. “Willfully” means intentionally. I t refers to the doing of an act knowingly and purposely, specifically intending the natural and probable consequences of the act. “Negligently” means an act or omission of a person who is under a duty to use due care which exhibits a lack of that degree of care which a reasonably prudent person would have exercised under the same or similar circumstances. “Culpable inefficiency” is inefficiency for which there is no reasonable or just excuse.
(d) Ineptitude. A person is not derelict in the performance of duties if the failure to perform those duties is caused by ineptitude rather than by willfulness, negligence, or culpable inefficiency, and may not be charged under this article, or otherwise punished. For example, a recruit who has tried earnestly during rifle training and throughout record firing is not derelict in the performance of duties if the recruit fails to qualify with the weapon.
Lesser included offense. Article 80—attempts
Maximum punishment.
(1) Violation or failure to obey lawful general order or regulation. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 2 years.
(2) Violation of failure to obey other lawful order. Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months.
Note: For (1) and (2), above, the punishment set forth does not apply in the following cases: if in the absence of the order or regulation which was violated or not obeyed the accused would on the same facts be subject to conviction for another specific offense for which a lesser punishment is prescribed; or if the violation or failure to obey is a breach of restraint imposed as a result of an order. In these instances, the maximum punishment is that specifically prescribed else wherefore that particular offense.
(3) Dereliction in the performance of duties.
(A) Through neglect or culpable inefficiency. Forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 3 months and confinement for 3 months.
(B) Willful. Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months.
I choose to agree.