Oath Keepers and Oath Takers: Does It Really Matter?

America is awash in talk about the US Constitution. Tenth Amendment organizations (tenthamendmentcenter.com) have popped up in all 50 states, all making the case that the Federal Government has overstepped its bounds and violated the Constitution.

The organization called Oath Keepers (OathKeepers.org) is making inroads into the active military, retired military and law enforcement communities, reminding them that they swore an oath to defend the Constitution. Their greatest concern is that a rogue Federal Government will issue direct orders to military and law enforcement personnel to violate the civil rights of American civilians on American soil.

But, why does anybody care about the US Constitution? It’s been DEAD for at least 150 years.

Many governmental employees swear an oath before beginning their government service. Many of the oaths taken contain the words, “support, protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

Let’s take a moment and get real familiar with the most well-known oaths used in the United States.

Oath of Enlistment – Military

“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; 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.”

Presidential Oath of Office

“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.”

Congressional Oath of Office, FBI, CIA, etc.

“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.”

Supreme Court Oath of Office

According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:

“I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

I’ve asked many active duty military as well as former military personnel about their oaths of service. I asked them specifically if they were required to sign their names on a document that contained the words of the Oath of Service. So far, I have not found one individual who actually signed an Oath of Service. They tell that they were required to raise their right hand and repeat the oath as it was spoken to them.

Everybody who takes an oath pledges to support and defend the US Constitution. With all these millions of individuals taking solemn oaths, you might think that the US Constitution is widely respected and revered.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

To whom are these persons pledging the oath? I submit that the oath is made to nobody. There is no agreement, no consent nor any other document that binds these oath takers to any other person or group of persons. It’s all verbal…all spoken into the wind, as it were.

If I walked out onto the Marietta Town Square on a July 4th holiday, and proclaimed with a bullhorn to the thousands of people gathered there with whom I have no contract, and loudly took an oath that I would enforce the laws of Canada, or France, or Thailand, or Brazil upon them…that oath has absolutely no validity in matters of law or reason. They would think me daft, and I would likely be escorted from the premises by police. Yet, in a like manner, men who are elected President of the United States stand on a platform on a cold January day once every four years and recite an Oath of Office in precisely the same manner. Young men and women, many still in their teen years, raise their right hands and take an oath before entering military service. Congressmen do it, FBI agents do it and local law enforcement personnel do it too. Even Supreme Court justices do it.

Please understand that in order for an oath to have any validity, there must exist a written agreement between the oath taker and the oath receiver. This is the most basic rule of law, and finds its roots in English law from the Magna Carta on into the present world of common law.

The United States Constitution is a dead document. Contrary to the ubiquitous knowledge of nearly every American citizen, no government exists that relies on any consent, compact, treaty or agreement of the “people of the United States” with each other. There is no written lawful document of any kind that binds Americans to each other or to their Federal Government.

The US Constitution did not create a new nation, as there is not one word in the Constitution that names the “United States” as a separate legal entity from the sovereign states. The states created a management company of sorts, much like a group of property owners would do. They gave the management company strictly limited powers, but did not sign over the deeds to their property, so to speak. The states meant to remain the principals, and have their Washington management company handle various duties under the careful watch of the states.

Furthermore, the wording of the Constitution reinforces the sovereignty of the states. Here is Article III, Section 3: “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against THEM, or in adhering to THEIR enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” If the United States were an entity, the proper pronoun to describe the United States would be “it,” not “them” or “their.”

And another point needs to be made…there is not one word in the Constitution that shows any intent of the Framers that this Constitution was supposed to be perpetual. But if you look into the document that preceded the Constitution…the Articles of Confederation,they actually mentioned “perpetuity.” Article XIII states “And that the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual.” It matters little, since neither you nor I can obligate our children to agreements that we make during our lifetimes by simply assenting verbally to them. If our children want to assume our obligations legally, they must do it in writing with their signatures affixed.

It is a tragedy of immense proportions that in today’s America, most people consider that the USA is “one nation, under God….and indivisible.”

The only government that exists in Washington DC is a few individuals who act in league with each other, called by various names such as president, representative, senator, judge, general, colonel, captain, admiral, or secretary, to name but a few. They can show no credentials that they have any legal relationship to the people of the United States. They were never duly hired or appointed as representatives or agents of any single citizen or group of citizens. They cannot identify their principals, since principals do not exist. The secret ballots that placed them in office obliterate any connection to any principal. They bear no personal responsibility for their acts. They plunder, rob and murder the people living in the United States. They rob them of their property at threat of death, and restrict their liberty in like manner.

As the group of people that call themselves “the US Federal Government,” or “The United States of America,” they assert their right to absolute dominion and ownership of the people living in the United States.

I strongly urge you to pick up a copy of the US Constitution and read it for yourself. Then, with the Constitution in one hand, read Lysander Spooner’s “No Treason” for yourself.

Prove me wrong, dear friends.

The bottom line is this: If the US Constitution is dead, and has no authority, all of this squawking and rallying and “GlennBeckin” is just exactly what our enemies want…yet another sleight-of-hand magician’s trick to keep the population distracted from understanding what the real thing is. The criminals in DC understand Sun Tzu’s “Art of War” and the Tea Partyers don’t.

This rogue government cannot be fixed, and it cannot be controlled by the states. The only solution for liberty is to leave.

Secession is the Hope For Mankind. Who will be first?

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

© Copyright 2010, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

About these ads

15 Responses to Oath Keepers and Oath Takers: Does It Really Matter?

  1. […] Oath Takers: Does It Really Matter? Posted on March 11, 2010 by Bill Miller This article by Russell D. Longcore on DumpDC.com. The US Constitution did not create a new nation, as there is not one word in the Constitution that […]

    • Michael says:

      I would like to point out a few things you do not seem to know. One, there are documents that individuals sign, I know this from my military career. These documents are also signed by political members as well. But most people do not read such and therefore do not know they are signing the oaths before taking them.
      Second, there are U.S. Supreme Court rulings that until one stands-up with your right hand to pledge this or that oath it can not be considered legal. Even if you have signed documents, the truth comes from the point of stating openly that you pledge. Then it becomes legal, not before.

      Third as for not who the pledge is given to, to the union and core values that are what made this nation. To people specifically no, to the government no, but to the concept and honor of a union, of putting the public and its needs above your own. This is held up in the laws suits in the Supreme Court. Those pledging an oath then are held to it if those in power want to enforce such. The oath is more important than the written contract.
      Mike

      • dumpdc says:

        Michael- Read Lysander Spooner’s book “No Treason,” and once you’ve finished it, perhaps you’ll be less naive about the law. Russell Longcore

  2. Dean Striker says:

    I agree with Russell Longcore that American (and actually all) governments are but illegal scams. I agree that secession is a proper response.

    I also wonder, tho’, how state secessions will really solve the problem. While surely secession is preferable to revolution, and assuming that it can be accomplished without bloodshed (we can’t forget Lincoln’s civil war against secession), what will we have then? Just a different Ruler under a different invalid constitution who will steal just like the big boys? Many or all states are merely miniature Federal Governments, all having Constitutions to revoke, and few would be different from FedGov.

    3143 total (3007 counties & 136 county-equivalents) in this USA. Makes me wonder if, per Sheriff Richard Mack, secession of the counties might be easier to accomplish and then to harness.

    Or a massive movement of Personal Secession, where the immediate family perhaps with known moral and loyal friends, declare their independence and otherwise choose their own laws within private associations. The good ones would grow together.

    I figure to start writing about Voluntary systems.

    • dumpdc says:

      Dean-

      Secession alone can never be the answer. The answer lies in the structure of the seceding state. If the seceding state just replicates the USA, you just have a smaller group of tyrants ruling over you.

      The successful seceding state will forsake the old Constitution and establish a completely new style of government. The corporation model is the model of the future because it binds all members to each other. Then, the new nation will prohibit fractional reserve banking and will allow monetary policy to be settled in the free marketplace. Private mints will coin gold and silver money only, and electronic egold will facilitate transactions as well. That is the foundation that will work.

  3. stillamerican says:

    Wonderful site thus far. Priority one, that seems to be unanimous, is that a coalition of states (or people) within designed boundaries for mutual protection from threats within & without.
    I agree in so far as when this “union” leaves it’s stated purpose & does not constrain itself to it’s purpose then it has no purpose for the “union”. The “union” is the purpose of the “union”.
    Who succeeded here? Checking the written document of “intended union causes”, The established “union” as the creation succeeded by defaulting on assurance to the union that it self empowered to expand by self declared “need” & it’s self declared proper.
    So long as the parties freed from the contract do not violate “the contract” wherein I am not bound but to certain “services” shared expenses.
    USA Constitution is contractual & not grievous. However the established coalition has grossly neglected the obedience to the various purposes written therein. A perfect union is you have yours & I have mine & when a common threat surfaces then we unite to return the peace to us both. Our “more perfect union” in total, all parts functioning as designed, does just that.
    I submit action on the states, people, or individual side is not necessary as Our Constitution has lawful remedy that dissolves the corrupt by “No-Confidence vote by any of the 3 for cause” without dissolving America.
    When & if the “service creation” should think it’s self owner of the whole & issue orders of a coup, Our contract allows for response in kind. This “sc” is playing a dangerous game wherein IT becomes the danger to the parties (nothing political) without “union” agreement. The USA Constitution agreement remains intact (yet unoccupied) & service falls on the sovereign states individually. Within the states are people rights & individual rights that must be assessed as to that contract. The state being as the federal is a coalition & not a kingdom.
    I must disagree with “dumpdc”. The “corporation model” is not new. It is Japanese style, top down management & levels of dictatorship. The only individual rights in that are what “corporate” gives.
    Compared to Our Constitution that orders common states’ services to “union” survival & safety that the individual states could provide but to a lesser degree. That Individuals could provide but to a lesser degree than the state.
    I’ve gone too long here, but the sum of the matter is Neither USA nor Const. has failed here. The gradual occupation & negligence has come to a head & either Federal do it’s duty to the various jobs or the state (&if not) the individual must stop complying with unlawful demands (now coming with direct threats) at all costs.

    • dumpdc says:

      Dear StillAmerican:

      The Constitution is not a contract of any kind, and it is also not a treaty. Calling it one does not make it so.

      The corporate model is just that… a model. So, design one that is not like Japan. But in order for a government to assure maximum liberty, it must bind the people together contractually. That means you sign a document willingly becoming a “shareholder/citizen.” Without a signed instrument, it’s just a communal fantasy and an invitation to tyranny, since there is nothing in reality to overthrow.

      • Dean Striker says:

        “The corporate model is just that… a model.”

        Actually, starting with a clean sheet of paper, one merely creates one’s own model. We can even drop words like corporation and government if we can dream up a new word.

        I love your premise that governments are illegal via not having consent. But here’s the rub. Those who claim to “own” and to “run” and to “control” are already doing so by their mere declaration that they DO!

        Thus we cannot AVOID!! We pay sales tax to someone on most everything we buy; we obtain licenses from someone for any venture we pursue. Even a man selling his labor subjects himself to withholding for whatever is claimed by “some ruler”.

        “Without a signed instrument, it’s just a communal fantasy and an invitation to tyranny, since there is nothing in reality to overthrow.”

        Tilting windmills in a way. But the parallel reality being unable to avoid those who control, the rules they make, or the property and freedoms they usurp. It matters little which level of government, all claim their right to control, to tax, to penalize, and to enforce. A pure concept of true Freedom is virtually impossible to elicit.

        One e.g.: We’ll need to get Walmart to refuse to collect sales taxes, to withhold income taxes, to file reports, ….. to be totally in control of their own environment. That applies to all people and all businesses and all of life.

        Russell, I think everything you write is true; I’m with ya! But Truth on the shelf just gathers dust. Help us all develop a practical and moral plan of action, and then JUST DO IT!.

  4. sommers says:

    I see some assurances with secession in that a state government in U.S.A. is easier to control than the huge D.C. bureacracy. The people are closer to the leaders and can better hold them accountable.
    While in some states the divide within may be just as large as with the D.C. divide, that can be dealt with by “losing” a part of the state to it’s own state of freedom.
    Far northern California might want to “lose” the rest of the state from Sacramento south, and north western Oregon might be gladly “offered out” from the rest of the state.

  5. DyingTruth says:

    Indeed you fool what effect would English Law that was binding on another continent have on the Americas or are you referring to the contract provisions of the constitution? Your statements are contradictory filled with gaps, lacking any sustainable base of logic. For what you say is to say no words are binding, that would also include written ones. For when the day that you have signed them have passed they would no longer apply.

    • dumpdc says:

      Dear Dying Truth: The fool is in your mirror. At the time the Constitution was written, the colonies had just broken from England and English law. They established criminal and common law based upon the traditions of English law, not Germany or France. Blackstone’s Commentary was more widely distributed in the colonies than it was in England.

      There are no contract provisions in the Constitution.

      The foundation of the argument is that the Constitution has no authority. Simple enough for you? Consequently, no oath to preserve the Constitution is valid, since the document has no authority. Read Spooner’s “No Treason” and I might talk with you again.

  6. rob says:

    Great site! Jefferson said dissention is the highest form of patriotism. I believe thats true. However, I want to point out that a signed document can not be an agreement, but only evidence of an agreement. The oath taken upon entering government service is also evidence of an agreement, witnessed and required prior to that service.
    Yes, I’ve read Spooner’s “No Treason” and I am reminded of the Mexicans who come to the US, to take advantage of opportunities for work, health care, welfare, & education. I mean those with no love for this country, those who come and take what they can get. My point is the government does more than it should and is still taken for granted. I believe Spooner took some things for granted and wished for freedom from democracy, the way some people wish to avoid jury duty. Strictly speaking, we are a democratic republic. Democracy is just mob rule.

    • leocorionsociety says:

      A Manifesto Civis

      “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” ~The Declaration of Independence. }
      The Guilford Covenant
      We whose names are here underwritten, intending by God’s gracious permission to plant ourselves in New England, and if it may be, in the southerly part about Quinnipiack, do faithfully promise each, for ourselves and our families and those that belong to us, that we will, the Lord assisting us, sit down and join ourselves together in one entire plantation, and be helpful each to the other in any common work, according to every man’s ability, and as need shall require, and we promise not to desert or leave each other or the plantation, but with the consent of the rest, or the greater part of the company who have entered into this engagement. As to our gathering together in a church way and the choice of officers and members to be joined in that way, we do refer ourselves, until such time as it please God to settle us in our plantation. In witness whereof we subscribe our names, this first of June 1639.
      MAXIMUS HOMO
      Defines… new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form … “~The Declaration of Independence.

      As our Founding Fathers envisioned it!

      When we speak of a form of government; no one thinks of any external or visible shape, but of the nature and adjustment of the various parts composing the government, and by means of which it is administered. A person, who reads and understands our constitution or organic law of the State, sees therein its form of government. We speak, also, of the form of society in a particular nation; and by this is meant the nature and relation of the several parts composing such society, the nature and arrangement of its social, industrial, commercial, educational, artistic, moral, and religious elements. Again, we speak of the form of a government; and by this we mean the character, connection, order, subordination, etc., of its various functionaries, the mode of their appointment, and their respective duties. When it is said, therefore, that our government is in the human form, the meaning is that it is in human order; that all its parts, or all the innumerable societies of which it consists, are so arranged and adjusted as to express most perfectly the truly human principles which constitute the essential spirit of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.. In other words, the relation, mutual dependence, and intercommunication of the societies composing the whole, and the uses they respectively perform, correspond to those existing among the various organs of the human body and their respective uses. One is a perfect type or representative image of the other body. It should appoint its wisest and best men to preside over its interests, because every one is aiming to subject himself to the government of the highest good and truth. And so the form or order of that community becomes more and more human. All its corporate acts express more and more faithfully the human thoughts and feelings with which the minds of its individual members are imbued. Such community is in the human form, therefore, just so far as the individual minds composing it are human. The moment one ceases to do its work, or appropriates more that its share of the juices elaborated, or more than it needs to fit it for the performance of its appointed use, that moment comes disease to itself and disease to all the rest. And if it perseveres in this abnormal course, sooner or later death inevitably ensues. Notwithstanding there exists authority and obedience, there is nothing like tyranny on the one hand or slavishness on the other.

      Page 2 (A Manifesto Civis.)

      There are persons? who are addicted to acquiring Power and Wealth, and they receive a satisfaction equal to a shot of Cocaine when they do acquire, and when they can exert power.
      With Unlimited Campaign Contributions; these people may dominate the 2012 election and, no doubt, establish a Tyrannical administration; worse than the Bush-Cheney administration.
      These people can not control their addiction and, worst yet, they believe that they are saved and justified.
      The ambiguity in the 12th amendment has been used to justify and foster the Opiate of a democratic instead of a republican form of government., because they believe, rightly so, that the people can be duped, with the Opiate of the right to Vote, and likewise bought, as has been the case with Congress and even the Supreme Court.

      There is no such thing as an honest election!

      ‘The Republic will degenerate into a democracy with the politicians promising largess and the people voting their own self-interest,’ quipped Madison.
      ‘The lawyers will get into Congress to manage the Constitution, license paper money and pillage the treasury,’ remarked Amos Singletary.
      ‘The Supreme Court judges, ignorant of its historical setting, will be unable to interpret the Constitution and the original intent of its provisions; and there will arise a two-party system, divided along economic interests, leading to deadlock as the public good is disregarded in the conflict of rival parties,” opined Madison. Re: The Federalist Papers, en essentia.

      The Electoral College was intended by our Founding Fathers to preserve the ancient Precedent established by the Israelites on the Plains of Encampment
      when Levi was in the Midst: also when the thirteen Chieftains of the lost tribes who had settled in Scandinavia held a TING to elect their King; likewise when the Pope is chosen: and this is the reason that when George Washington was likewise elected he was given the title of ~Mr. Precedent.

      [With ambiguous placement, a modifier is confusing to a reader because it can refer to two or more words in a sentence.] ~(c) 1999 Prentice-Hall, Inc.

      “The Electors…one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves…
      . But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.” ~Amendment XII.

  7. usirius says:

    Regarding your position that the Oath of office means nothing legally, you are incorrect.

    The first law statute of the United States of America, enacted in the first session of the First Congress on 1 June 1789, was Statute 1, Chapter 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which established the oath required by civil and military officials to support the Constitution.

    This set up the legality of the Oaths taken under our legitimate government..

    The wording of the Presidential Oath was established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 10.

    This sets up EXACTLY what all US presidents are required to do to be able to LEGALLY stay in that office, uphold, protect, support, and defend our type of government (Constitutional Republic) – and that they know what the boundaries are that they cannot LEGALLY cross.

    The first law statute of the United States of America, enacted in the first session of the First Congress on 1 June 1789, was Statute 1, Chapter 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which established the oath required by civil and military officials to support the Constitution.

    This sets up the legality for the rest of the executive branch, and the other two branches of our government; the military, all Law enforcement agencies, all heads of states, and ALL federal employees required to take an Oath to take the position they occupy.

    “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 Judicials are REQUIRED to also take a second solemn Oath that they will make sure that all LAWS, etc follow the US Constitution (The Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law of this land – NOT the federal government that is required to take an Oath to it). They are REQUIRED {if they want to keep LEGALLY occupying that position within the USA under our legitimate government} – which is the only place the position they are occupying exists) to keep it.

    “I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

    They are BOUND by their Oath to support the Constitution, and should they abrogate their Oath by their acts or inaction, are subject to charges of impeachment and censure.

    This makes it a political offense to NOT keep it.

    Now for the parts that make it a civil offense to NOT keep the Oath(s):

    Solemn: “Legally binding, Common legal phrase indicating that an agreement has been consciously made, and certain actions are now either required or prohibited”, “The other requirement for an agreement or contract to be considered legally binding is consideration – both parties must knowingly understand what they are agreeing to”.

    Bound – “Being under legal or moral obligation; To constitute the boundary or limit of; To set a limit to; confine”

    The other things that most Oath takers seem to ignore: Once given, the Oath is binding for life, unless renounced, refused, and abjured. It does not cease upon the occasions of leaving office or of discharge.

    If they renounce, refuse, and abjure they no longer meet the requirement of the office or cannot LEGALLY take that position/office if the refuse.

    The other thing that a lot of people seem to be unclear on is what exactly is a Domestic Enemy of the USA”:

    “Domestic enemies pursue legislation, programs against the powers of the US Constitution (our legitimate government). They work on destroying and weakening the Rights of the People guaranteed by the Constitution (The Constitution does not give us our natural rights, it REQUIRES that those serving within the three branches of our government PROTECT them. They legally can NEVER stop them for ANY reason). Plus they create laws, amendments, etc that goes against the restraint on the three branches of our government by the Constitution. They are also those who support those in action, or by inaction; vote, voice, money, etc who are going against or trying to weaken the US Constitution and the Peoples written guarantee of the protection of those Rights”.

    A lot of people incorrectly think that the TSA can be at airports, bus stations, train stations and on our roadways interfering with our natural rights – they cannot. Unfortunately, much like what happened in Germany in its past – what that does is make criminals of those who are enforcing those illegal laws, bills, amendments, executive orders – we are NOT a monarchy, dictatorship, or ruling class, etc – we do NOT owe our allegiance to a person who has supreme control over us where whatever laws were/are created was/is done so at the pleasure of the ruler and without concern for their subjects.

    The Constitution and US statute do guarantee unencumbered access to fast transportation. Here is the law:
    “A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace.” 49 US Code-Section 40103 (2).
    Neither the government or private company can lawfully require you to submit to an illegal act, such as being groped, as a condition to a lawful contract. They do it anyway, which is a violation of constitutional rights.

    Here our forefathers and the framers established that God, our creator, by the very act of our creation, instilled upon us our rights; and those rights were NOT granted by any government. Our government was to be created by the people, drawing its power from the people solely for the purpose of protecting those rights, and certain other duties such as dealing with foreign affairs and making sure the states traded fairly with each other.

    A government may have the power to do something (which is called ‘De Facto’) though not have the LEGAL RIGHT or POWER to do so (called ‘De Jure’).

    So if Congress passes a law which is in conflict with the Constitution, or the President passes an executive order which is in conflict with the Constitution, the act creates a ‘law’ but does not make it right or constitutionally lawful.

    It may well be illegally enforced by police action and be totally unconstitutional, carrying the weight of law because those doing the enforcing do NOT understand or keep the solemn legally binding OATH that was required of them. (This is what happened in Germany – and those who did so were, and still are, being hunted down and prosecuted for their crimes)

    “Following (illegal, unlawful) Orders” is not a defense for law enforcement or military here in the USA. This has been held up in military and civilian courts in the USA – soldiers and others who took the solemn and legally binding Oath have been prosecuted for their crimes.

    For those of you that are not aware of it:

    Executive legislation is the use of the presidential office to pass law – very similar to a king, dictator. Under our legitimate government Congress is the ONLY government body that has legislative power. It states in Article one, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress…” Notice the word “All”. There is NO room for interpretation. It does not mean most legislation and it does not mean all legislation except what a President may have a whim to pass, it means ALL.

    If Congress is the only branch of government “constituted to perform this process,” then the executive branch is prohibited from do so.

    All executive orders are NOT legal and binding on the American people. Time past does not matter in this matter, much like murder there is NO time limit on its illegality. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that if this illegal action is obeyed for 50 years it automatically becomes legal.

    So how did this come to pass? “We the people” have not been doing our jobs and have ALLOWED corruption to exist within our government. Plus we have allowed one of the BASIC requirements of our type of government to be ignored:

    The Supreme Court stated in Red Lion v. FCC in 1969: “It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.”

    “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be … The People cannot be safe without information. When the press is free, and every man is able to read, all is safe”. Thomas Jefferson

    The opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction. Thomas Jefferson: 1779

    The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought. Justice Anthony Kennedy

    ”We, the people, are the rightful masters of both congress and the courts – not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution”. Abe Lincoln

    “that a federal “law” that violates the Constitution is no law at all. It is “void and of no effect.” Thomas Jefferson

    Something to think about regarding the Oaths:

    If there were never intended to be action to defend the Constitution from those who are domestically attempting to destroy its power and authority, why would each Oath require it of those who take the Oaths?

  8. usirius says:

    “All executive orders are NOT legal and binding on the American people. Time past – should be ‘passed’ – does not matter in this matter, much like murder there is NO time limit on its illegality. “

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 17,447 other followers

%d bloggers like this: