The Presidential Oath of Office, Oath an officer in the military Enemies, Foreign and Domestic
Canada Free Press – Printer Friendly Page
© V2.0 – CJ Website Design
The Presidential Oath of Office, Oath an officer in the military
Enemies, Foreign and Domestic
Bob Beers Bio
By Bob Beers Tuesday, August 25, 2009
The Presidential Oath of Office, as set down in Article II, Section 1, of the US Constitution, reads:
“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 oath of enlistment in the military is slightly different:
“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).
The oath of an officer does not mention obeying the President…interesting, huh?
An important point of comparison between the two is the affirmation to “protect and defend the constitution of the United States”. In the military version they also swear to obey the orders of those over them, including the President, but the defense of the constitution comes first. According to this oath no member of the military can, with integrity obey an order that violates the constitution.
The liberals and moderates will, of course, argue that the Supreme Court has shown that there can be many interpretations to the text of the Constitution. Bull shine! As I have shown in other columns, the Constitution was written in plain language long before the Congress decided to write a plain language law. That argument exists only to make it easy for those who want to muddy the constitutional waters, in essence, “enemies domestic”.
Barrack Hussein Obama has already declared those who disagree with his socialist policies “racists”. In answer to this declaration, a black conservative was beaten badly by Obama supporters. That man’s constitutional rights were violated, essentially by the order of the administration currently in Washington. Who’s the real racist here?
The tenth amendment to the constitution of the United States says:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Though severely weakened by the fourteenth amendment, this language is still in the constitution and individual states still have the right to conduct business as they see fit, or do they? Do the people still have any powers left to them?
President Obama, through his policies, many written by Obama’s associates and “Czars”, not members of congress, has begun the process of systematically dismantling the last shreds of authority the constitution holds. The “stimulus package” has resulted in the morphing of the US Government into a competitor with business. This is, to my reading, a clear violation of the commerce clause of the US Constitution found in section 8:
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Nowhere in there does the language even intimate, “and go into competition with…”.
The Healthcare Bill, again written by people outside of elected office and not read by any of its supporters in congress (Congressman Waxman actually ridiculed his constituents who asked him to at least read the bill), is another attack on the constitution. Some of its provisions could even reach as far as moving into taxation without representation as it would create an oligarchy of extragovernmental authority with the ability to penalize with taxes. Obama has expressed his approval of that portion of the bill. And yes, I, at least, have read it.
The Cap and Trade bill would violate the tenth amendment by going beyond the regulation of foreign and extrastate commerce to actually deciding who can and will be able to enter into commerce. The bill will favor one business over another and force business to set pay scales at a level approved by the Czars in Washington. We will no longer be a democratic republic, the form of government created by the founding fathers, but a fascist oligarchy.
We know fairly well who our foreign enemies are; Islamic fundamentalists and those socialist governments like Venezuela who use organizations like Al-Qaeda as their weapon of choice. Our problem arises in identifying the domestic enemies. It appears we have placed dozens of them into elected office, very high elected office. We do, however, have a weapon of choice. It was placed into our hands by the founding fathers.
Bob L. Beers is a member of the Nevada Assembly representing District 21 in Clark County, Nevada. Prior to his election in 2006, he was an author involved in graphic arts and illustration.
Originally from Eureka, California, Beers attended Arcata High School and Humboldt State College. He currently resides in Henderson, Nevada with his wife and son.
Bob can be reached at: firstname.lastname@example.org
Printed from: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14086