The Oath of Office

Must not be Ceremonial

Perhaps an issue of greater importance even than the law is the oath of office required of office holders, the military and other positions. If those sworn to uphold the law routinely violate their oath of office without penalty, there can be no law.

Unless these oaths are enforced, they are meaningless ceremony, antithetical to the expectations of self-governing citizens who are the sovereigns in a self-governing republic.

The oath required of the President-Elect, in order to become president – that is, taking and observing this oath is required to assume the office – is:

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.

The presidency is at the top of the Executive Branch, one of the three branches of our federal government. Article 1, Section 8, lists the powers delegated to the Federal government (all three branches) by the states when the states created the feds and delegated to them specific, enumerated powers. Nowhere in the Constitution do the states delegate to the feds the power of governing via Executive Order (EO), or “a pen and a phone;” that authority simply does not exist.

Because the required oath demands that the president “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,” the instant he has issued an EO, he has violated the oath required for him to hold that office; the instant he issues an “Executive Oder” lacking - by definition - the sole Constitutional authority of the legislative branch to make law, he has violated his oath of office by not preserving, not protecting and not defending the Constitution – but doing the opposite of each, and made himself ineligible to hold that office.

A mature nation immediately would expel him from the presidency as ineligible, and therefore not subject to the impeachment clause (as he no longer is the president due to self-declared ineligibility) and the delays and partisanship present in those processes.

But it gets worse.

The oath required of a congressman/woman (House or Senate) is:

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.

Notice the “without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion” part. Any congressional officeholder submitting legislation that violates the current holdings of the Constitution by SCOTUS, not only has violated their oath, but demonstrated they were dishonest in taking it to begin with. In either or both cases, they have made themselves ineligible for the office they hold and, again, in a mature nation, would instantly be expelled from Congress. The Sergeant At Arms (Senate; House), “chief law enforcement and protocol officer” would remove them from the Floor, empty their offices and terminate their compensation and perks.

Further, any politician who has campaigned on violating 2A (pick a Democrat), 4A (anyone campaigning on surveillance or censorship, or who voted for the Patriot Act – legislation does not override the Constitution), or who has supported the detention without charge – or the lack of a speedy trial – for the J6 detainees, is in violation of their oath of office, and must be expelled.

Senators like DiFi can brag all they want that “we can’t have a totally armed society,” but the fact of the matter is that WE, not SHE define what WE can and cannot have, and WE completed this argument in 1788 when the Constitution and 2^nd Amendment were ratified and created the federal government to serve the states and the People - not vice-versa. (WE don’t care what those hired to represent us think; THEIR job - as our hirelings - is to care what WE think.)

After Ratification, changes to the Constitution only can be made via amendment, not legislation. The instant any federal legislator submits gun control legislation, speech control legislation, legislation to control peaceful assembly, close business, mandate medical procedures, etc., they have violated their oath and must be expelled.

They have made themselves ineligible.

Kamala Harris has campaigned her entire professional career against guns. That fact – alone – made her to be ineligible to be seated as a senator, as she not only had, but had often demonstrated that she had dishonestly taken the - required - oath; lied - and retained, “mental reservation or purpose of evasion.”

In campaigning for the presidency, she – again, still – is demanding confiscation of modern firearms.

We’re not trying to take anybody’s guns away' but we need assault weapons ban.

This statement, alone, makes her ineligible for the presidency as she is demonstrating on the campaign trail daily that she will attack, not defend, the Constitution as interpreted by SCOTUS.

A mature nation would deny her a ballot position as she is ineligible; she, quite simply, cannot honestly take the – required – oath of office.

The second-to-last line of defense for We the People against an overreaching federal government is the military. Prospective officers of the military take an oath not to the Commander in Chief, but to the Constitution:

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the _____ (Military Branch) 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 reservation 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."

The Uniform Code of Military Justice, or UCMJ, requires those in the military to reject illegal orders. Based on this, one expects officers in the military to ensure their civilian masters understand that legislation, Executive Orders, or orders to themselves as serving officers, that are in conflict with the Constitution to which they have sworn an oath – not to the administration or CINC – are illegal and will be rejected in defense of that Constitution. Sadly, the military not only does not do this, but they also allow themselves to be deployed in un-declared wars via the legislative go-round of the Constitutional requirement of a formal Declaration that is an AUMF. There are, in fact, congressmen working to repeal current - and outdated - AUMF, and to re-assert the sole Constitutional authority of Congress to deploy American arms via a Declaration of War.

If lawmakers do not want the responsibility of debating and voting on decisions of war and peace then they should find a different profession.

Academics and others who dislike limits on centralized government authority are using their position to tell us the Constitution is obsolete. If these people supported the rule of law (they don’t) and the “muh democracy” they always ignorantly yap about (they don’t), they’d know the Constitution is “the Supreme Law of the Land,” and that the Constitution was designed to adapt to changing times via the amendment process. Amendments can add, delete or alter federal authority, requiring only the ratification by the – superior – states over the changes to the authority of the  - inferior - federal government. (And, no, the Supremacy Clause does not alter this hierarchy as it applies only to those authorities granted to the federal government via the enumerated powers - otherwise the 9th and 10th Amendments would be irrelevant and not included in ratification, and we would have a “government of unlimited powers,” not “a government of limited powers.”)

The problem these ‘HOA presidents’ have is that amendments must be ratified by 2/3 of the States and take time, sometimes years… and they don’t like this.

Is it difficult to alter the Constitution? Yes. And it should be. The time it takes to consider, encourage and enact changes to the primary document defining our country is a feature, not a bug.

Their inability to implement an all-powerful, centralized national (not federal) government to wage totalitarian government against We the People, is their real complaint.

And their complaints must not be allowed to succeed, or our republic - NOT “our democracy” - is over.