Do Congress, the US Executive Branch, and the US Military members have to follow their Oath of Office, as they pledged?

SGT Nickolas Ortiz — Mon, 19 Jul 2021 12:29:12 -0400

Socialism is antithetical to the US Constitution... as is illegal immigration and other issues we find in today's Washington news. In the Oath of Office, it states, and more, "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...".

Should Officers in the US Military, Congressional Members, OR those in the Executive Branch of our Government resign from their positions if they accede to the ideals of Communism or Socialism? Should they be relieved of command? AND... as we seen in the current Admin in Washington, do WE, the PEOPLE have recourse to remove those that are clear Socialists and Communists? In the USA, you DO have freedom of speech... but when you take an Oath of Office and openly betray that Oath, what are WE as Citizens to do?

Response by SrA John Monette made Jul 19 at 2021 12:33 PM

SrA John Monette — Mon, 19 Jul 2021 12:33:19 -0400

if you want an elected official removed, go vote

Response by CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 19 at 2021 12:34 PM

CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 19 Jul 2021 12:34:23 -0400

Vote and stay informed. Unless they are handled within the guidelines, and proven to be bad, there is little more. Removal without cause negates the vote of all who support them.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Jul 19 at 2021 12:44 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Mon, 19 Jul 2021 12:44:54 -0400

Can you point to the sections of the constitution that mandate citizens and political figures must abide by specific economic and political doctrine?

Don't provide any opinions or diatribes... Just provide the specific sections of the Constitution that mandate specific specific beliefs and/or economic and political doctrine. Or, if there is none, just say "none".

Response by Patricia Overmeyer made Jul 19 at 2021 12:58 PM

Patricia Overmeyer — Mon, 19 Jul 2021 12:58:12 -0400

Instead of throwing out the flaming words "socialism" or "communism", please define these terms. It's hard to make out what one is specifically asking if the terms are not defined. Also stating "everyone knows what (fill in the blank) means so I don't have to define the terms is quite disingenuous for political/philosophical discussions on the merits of the arguments.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 19 at 2021 1:03 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 19 Jul 2021 13:03:39 -0400

Most of what is tossed out in the news is grossly incorrect about socialism, communism and even capitalism. Im not here to get into a debate about the finer points of any of those, but as a member of the US Military dont get drawn into catch phrases and political drama. Our enemies actively create fictional problems for us to fight each other over.

Response by PFC Joseph Cuschieri made Jul 19 at 2021 1:25 PM

PFC Joseph Cuschieri — Mon, 19 Jul 2021 13:25:28 -0400

The oath is a promise with their life as collateral against it. They should be tried for treason then executed.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jul 19 at 2021 1:27 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Mon, 19 Jul 2021 13:27:30 -0400

It seems that most oaths are symbolic. You cannot be prosecuted for violating your oath of office, but can be prosecuted for lying under oath. The only penalty, it seems, for violating an oath of office is failure to be reelected. (Forgive me while I fall to the floor laughing. How many have suffered that fate?)

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 19 at 2021 1:44 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 19 Jul 2021 13:44:14 -0400

I've been asking this question for over 6 years now.
----------------------------------
"I do not know whether it is to yourself or Mr. Adams I am to give my thanks for the copy of the new constitution. I beg leave through you to place them where due. It will be yet three weeks before I shall receive them from America. There are very good articles in it: and very bad. I do not know which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have sufficed to set me against a Chief magistrate eligible for a long duration, if I had ever been disposed towards one: and what we have always read of the elections of Polish kings should have forever excluded the idea of one continuable for life. Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion.[1] The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted." - Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Jul 19 at 2021 1:47 PM

MCPO Roger Collins — Mon, 19 Jul 2021 13:47:29 -0400

Interesting to note that so many of those defending Socialism, Marxism and possibly Communism are unverified.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 19 at 2021 2:00 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 19 Jul 2021 14:00:44 -0400

Posts like this only serve to promote hate. You ask a question and then insult people when they answer in a way that isn't in line with what you want them to think. Be better.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jul 19 at 2021 2:02 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Mon, 19 Jul 2021 14:02:35 -0400

Active in socialism and communism?

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 19 at 2021 2:28 PM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 19 Jul 2021 14:28:27 -0400

I have so much I want to say against this that will take way to long to type out. People in this country specifically the youth aren't calling for communism. Some want democrat socialism but not full on socialism. There are issues with socialism as there are with capitalism. Free market economics are a major benefit to our economy but it should be used to benefit the people. Instead of taking the rich have everyone pay a flat tax rate. Instead or having free healthcare for all have free Healthcare for some with a public pay option. Instead of having voter laws have a national voter data base handled by the selective service board with social security give a free federal ID guard with a photo your name and a digital ssn marker that can only be viewed under certain conditions like real ID. Instead of being anti-immgrant or having open borders mainstream and modernize our immigration process. It's too buckled down by too much governmental paperwork. Everyone has taken the same oath of office as everyone who has enlisted, politically appointed or became a federal civil servant. Those oaths mean differently to everyone who takes them. Do I like the current administration? No. Did I like the last? No. In my 27 years on this planet I can say all presidents and their admins from Clinton to Bush all had good and bad policies in their own ways. I don't consider a single one great or terrible. Rating presidents by personalities or beliefs I could say Bush was a big idiot, Trump was a egotistical common asshat New Yorker. Obama was a decent speaker but too stuck in his beliefs. Biden should be in a home along with all those other congress and senators over 65. Administration's change with the times. This country isn't has conservative as it was 10-20-30 ect years ago. Sometimes it's bad but sometimes it's good as well people have became more open minded but less tolerant as before. We all know our political officials and government don't care about either side or the people as a whole they never have. I however can say I'm lucky to be here vs any other country our economy and social well being were better served than anything other country.

Response by SSG Samuel Kermon made Jul 19 at 2021 2:37 PM

SSG Samuel Kermon — Mon, 19 Jul 2021 14:37:19 -0400

I agree they should, but are not, honoring their oath. I agree that they should be removed from their position. I agree that many of us know we would be removed if we broke our oaths. Unfortunately, they will remain stuck like ticks to the rest of us and our choice is to remove by voting them our, or for military officials, getting them quietly and quickly retired. This nation cannot go through another civil war 1860 style and have even a chance of coming out a re-united nation. Think more along the lines of Balkanism.

Response by SPC Paul Shene III made Jul 19 at 2021 2:51 PM

SPC Paul Shene III — Mon, 19 Jul 2021 14:51:11 -0400

Socialism or even communism is not contrary to the Constitution which starts with "We the people". If the people choose to have our government do socialist things, and the constitution doesn't directly and explicitly forbid those things, then it's constitutional. Some socialist institutions our constitution clearly doesn't forbid include police officers with qualified immunity, a standing Navy (explicitly required), a national postal system (explicitly required in the constitution also), the interstate highway system, et al. Social Security payments are socialist also, so socialist that the rich lobbied the lawmakers and got an exemption for income above a certain level, so the wealthy don't pay into it, but have no problem taking from it to finance their friends running the Wall Street casino.

Socialism is just a system of controlling the means of production, which capitalism also is. They are economic systems, not our government. The actual threat to the constitution comes from people who want the law applied with partiality and deference to social class rather than equal justice under law. such as the Proud Boys, and various sovereign citizen groups. Socialists only really pose a threat to corporations who exploit their labor force with ideas of unionization, strikes, and collective bargaining

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 19 at 2021 3:15 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 19 Jul 2021 15:15:43 -0400

SMS do. The rest of those in question only take it for the photo op. For an oath to mean anything you have to have morals, integrity, and honor. Morals, integrity, honor aren’t on the list of requirements for politicians. Left or right.

Response by SPC Paul Shene III made Jul 19 at 2021 3:50 PM

SPC Paul Shene III — Mon, 19 Jul 2021 15:50:18 -0400

Since CPL Lawson is just clout farming with his downvotes, he's blocked. I only talk to the intelligent. MAGA folk who get offended easily get laughed at. Deal with it.

Response by SSG Edward Tilton made Jul 19 at 2021 4:21 PM

SSG Edward Tilton — Mon, 19 Jul 2021 16:21:15 -0400

Socialism being antithetical is an assumption on your part. I see no problem with it. Democracy can exist in Socialist Germany or Socialist Israel. Why not here?

Response by MSG Daniel Talley made Jul 19 at 2021 4:29 PM

MSG Daniel Talley — Mon, 19 Jul 2021 16:29:04 -0400

A "dereliction of duty" of sorts has been prosecuted in our military, law enforcement, and likely a few others. I see no indication of any such thing in politics beyond prosecution for crime.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 19 at 2021 5:26 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 19 Jul 2021 17:26:10 -0400

Heads up. Long before Biden this country became a socialist state and you have participated in that socialism and demanded more of it.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Jul 19 at 2021 6:20 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Mon, 19 Jul 2021 18:20:08 -0400

Response by SPC Jesse Davis made Jul 19 at 2021 7:51 PM

SPC Jesse Davis — Mon, 19 Jul 2021 19:51:38 -0400

The constitution says nothing about socialism.
More importantly, it says nothing about christ or the bible either.

In fact, this is alot of ideology that has nothing to do with the constitution, just rebranded McCarthyism.

Response by SFC Randy Hellenbrand made Jul 19 at 2021 8:00 PM

SFC Randy Hellenbrand — Mon, 19 Jul 2021 20:00:49 -0400

While I know some socialism is mandated I absolutely know GOP FASCISM ISN'T!!!!!!!!!

Response by SFC Randy Hellenbrand made Jul 19 at 2021 8:11 PM

SFC Randy Hellenbrand — Mon, 19 Jul 2021 20:11:15 -0400

Trump never followed his oath!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Response by SPC Stephan Baker made Jul 20 at 2021 12:05 AM

SPC Stephan Baker — Tue, 20 Jul 2021 00:05:44 -0400

I always said that clinton should have been charged under the UCMJ... I guess when you are " commander in Chief" the rules don't apply

Response by CMSgt Marcus Falleaf made Jul 20 at 2021 9:08 AM

CMSgt Marcus Falleaf — Tue, 20 Jul 2021 09:08:01 -0400

Obviously not or we would have a different President.

Response by SrA Michele Burgman made Jul 20 at 2021 9:09 AM

SrA Michele Burgman — Tue, 20 Jul 2021 09:09:50 -0400

Just like all the military and Veterans that stormed the Capitol on 6Jan. They quickly forgot about their oath too as they fell for the big lie....absolutely shameful.

Response by CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 20 at 2021 11:30 AM

CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 20 Jul 2021 11:30:00 -0400

I agree with the premise of your question, even if other respondents basically don’t think it is correct because they don’t like the words you chose. Okay, so it is clear that the FBI is doing illegal things in violation of the Constitution, and the Executive branch doesn’t care and doesn’t care if the President likes or hates what they are doing because the President isn’t really their boss. It’s clear that the NSA is doing illegal things, and they don’t care what anyone thinks either. In both cases, the judicial branch doesn’t seem to care, anyway. The Legislative branch won’t do anything, because they just don’t ever do much by Constitutional design. So taking our oath seriously, what should we do about those things and all the other things that are clearly unconstitutional? We could be politically active, but you run into problems with effectiveness and military regulation on political activities. It seems that the real question is, “At what point do we take up arms and force the correction of these problems?” I’ve contemplated that.

First, there is no mechanism for armed military intervention in the Constitution. So any violent action taken by the military to protect the Constitution violates laws passed under the Constitution or basically suspends the Constitution temporarily (or longer). So that doesn’t seem to be a good way to keep the oath. For good reason, it seems. Who decides what is constitutional? If it was General Milley, the 101st might show up to force Congress to only admit members that strictly reflect the racial make-up of the country according to the results of the most recent census, elections be damned. That doesn’t seem to be what the Constitution means to me, but maybe that’s how General Milley reads it. At the very least, it would be a method that in itself will end America instead of protecting it.

Second, if you look at Revolutions around the world, they tend to be bloody affairs. The American Revolution was relatively civil. That probably stems from the fact that it was not started because some low level people grabbed guns and started shooting, so more people did, then it engulfed a city, and then others around the country started to take up arms because it was already started. While that is a typical way to start things, in America it was elected officials who decided to do this, and they sent an official declaration of their intent, etc. Yes, there were violent events earlier on, but it seems not to have blown up the way most Revolutions do that. I am not aware of any elected officials going down that route currently.

Third, even if a group of elected officials determines that war is the answer to resolve the various problems of unconstitutional actions occurring in our government, it’s not clear to me the military can do much about it. I’m not a historian, so I am certainly unaware of many facts, but as far as I’m aware, one part of a military has never left to join the other side in America. So, no British units at the outbreak of the war sided with the Continentals, packed up all their military equipment t, and went over to fight for independence. I don’t think that happened in the Civil War, either (though this is where I’ve been surprised not to find this occurring). Federal forces didn’t switch, they fought under President Lincoln so far as I can tell.

So based on these things, my conclusion is that defending against all enemies, foreign and domestic, is a commitment to speak up and honor our beliefs, not a commitment to take up arms. Enlisted members as a group will have virtually zero opportunities to do something concrete. Only the very smallest group of officers who rise high enough to meaningfully interact with civilian leadership will have the opportunity to say that something is illegal or inappropriate or unwise. And they will be told to do it anyway, or be forced to resign, because our system doesn’t recognize that person’s heartfelt conviction as what determines constitutionality. That is determined in elections and in courts. If checks and balances fail, the military can’t fix it. The military could destroy it completely and then start a new country, maybe just as good as the original, but probably worse. The best way is for the electoral/judicial process to slowly repair damage done to the system.

Response by SFC Art Robinson made Jul 20 at 2021 12:09 PM

SFC Art Robinson — Tue, 20 Jul 2021 12:09:33 -0400

"THUMBS DOWN!" (This silly ass site says I need more silly ass "influential points" to vote down your silly ass post, so, take this as a voting down . . .)

I've actually got a LOT to say about your post, but, as I have a life, and need to head out to workout, let me just remind us all of those famous words: "Those who are IGNORANT of history are DAMNED to repeat it!"

Have a good day, all my Brothers and Sisters . . . (insert "Heart" emoji here)

Response by LCDR Joshua Gillespie made Jul 20 at 2021 1:07 PM

LCDR Joshua Gillespie — Tue, 20 Jul 2021 13:07:14 -0400

There's an old saying, "The Golden Rule is... They who have the gold, make the rules"

I'm going to (try and) go not much further than to suggest this; if you're a young person and don't see the "possibilities" of "little s" socialism, you may lack compassion. However, if you're a more mature person, and don't see the the "risks" of socialism, you may lack wisdom (pretty sure Churchill said something similar). Everything that supplies an individual need from the resources collected from the whole, is "socialist" (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, WIC, public schools, etc.) The literal alternative is to exist in a society where there is no charity, no "safety net", and no public services. Such a society would (and in my opinion, did) fail every bit as quick a purely Communist society (which I cannot fathom anyone seriously defending). However, the price we pay (and it is dear) for these "services" is increased intrusion, control, and manipulation from centralized forms of government. Our Constitution, and the balance of separate powers it represents, is designed to prevent the likelihood that any such power will be used contrary to the will of the People. It is full of compromises, and they who cannot/will not compromise... soon find themselves out of options.

Here's where (for me at least), the "oath" comes into play. Part of the "compromise" intrinsic to the Constitution is "accepting" that with freedom comes risk, and with risk... opportunity. We "accept" that as citizens we have a right to voice our opinion, assemble to demonstrate, even openly disagree with and oppose those in power. However, we also accept that in a society where much is built on individual merit... we have to protect the property, rights, and safety of others. This is why one of the most American things one can do is engage in "protest"... but one of the least is to allow protest to devolve into mob violence, coercion and threat. Our Constitution grants us the rights to simultaneously challenge the models of the past... while others cling to them as cherished principles. Where decisions must be made for many, the representative forms of legislature are "supposed" to ensure decisions are made not by simple majority... but process. Whenever and wherever we decide the "rights" of one party suddenly outweigh those of others... we risk the same tyranny and oppression that we formed to avoid. Our "oath" is designed to remind us of this when it is unclear where competing loyalties may conflict.

There are of course loyalties this oath cannot and must not ever be placed in conflict with... THAT is what worries ME most about all of "this".

We cannot ever ask serving members of the Armed Forces to "choose" between the People (any of the People) and the Government... only the lawful orders given them under the Constitution. We can never ask legislators to "choose" between the Constitutional rights of one group, or that of another... only the best ways to ensure the continuation of both. We can never ask a President, acting as Commander in Chief, to "choose" between their role as Chief Executive of the nation, and that of an elected representative of all states therein... only the best and most Constitutional means of serving each as part of the whole. Anything else, and we risk everything from uncertainty to civil war.

What worries me now, is that people in the Military, public service, and the representative government, all view their "oath" as a formality. Their true loyalties lie with those who pay their salaries, fund their pensions, and provide their benefits. For the sake of all of the above, they "may" be willing to allow some citizens' rights be abused... if not forgone altogether. In a no less destructive manner, there may be others who have placed party affiliation over Constitutional principle...and will stomach any and all means of ensuring their party retains or retrieves power. Such Machiavellian "ends justify the means" approaches lead nowhere but dissolution and destruction.

So, (very) long answer to your question, what do WE do about it? If we want to continue as a united republic, we MUST find that middle ground once again. Our leaders MUST stop serving their own interests, and serve the principles of the Constitution... even if it means not being re-elected, especially if it means losing affluence. The pundits MUST stop taking cheap shots at one another. The media MUST stop producing "click bait", and start seeking truth once more. The rhetoric and posturing MUST cool. The riots MUST stop, the threats to individuals, to communities, to homes and families MUST stop. If we are at a point where such a union is no longer possible, then it matters very little what we do. What will be, will be, and if that nightmare ever became reality... no one would prefer it to the status quo.

Response by LCDR Claire S. made Jul 20 at 2021 4:41 PM

LCDR Claire S. — Tue, 20 Jul 2021 16:41:34 -0400

Apparently the President does not.

Response by PO3 Steven Guess made Jul 21 at 2021 1:05 AM

PO3 Steven Guess — Wed, 21 Jul 2021 01:05:21 -0400

Ask the British