Posted on Sep 17, 2017
Do we need a different Oath when it comes to officers and enlisted supporting the Constitution at the time we join the service?
12.9K
36
12
4
4
0
Since we just celebrated Constitution Day, it raised a question that I have often pondered, “Why are there difference in the Officer's Oath and Enlisted oath when we join the military?”
Officer's Oath: “I, (state your name), having been appointed a (rank) in the United States (branch of service), 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 office upon which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
And the Enlisted Oath: “I, (state your 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.”
One of the reasons given, as I read many different references and source materials is that this keeps officers from having to swear allegiance to any individual or to obey any orders that might be illegal. It also makes sure that Enlisted people know that they must obey orders from superiors. I must ask, are our Enlisted troops so unintelligent today that they must take an oath to obey orders from “officers” and only “officers” appointed over them.
Look at the oath for Enlisted again, there is no provision for any Enlisted person to ever obey the orders of another Enlisted person. Do any of the other Enlisted people remember having classes in boot camp that explained the oath of enlistment? I do. The class then went on to explain part of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Article 90 of the UCMJ covers obeying orders from Superior Officers and that such orders MUST be LEGAL. Article 91 of the UCMJ covers Orders from Warrant Officers, Noncommissioned Officers, or Petty Officers.
SO, here is the real reason for my rambling, in today’s Military do we need a different oath for Officers and Enlisted of would one suffice? I respectfully submit that one would and it sould read like this – very much like the Officer’s Oath of today:
“I, (state your name), having been appointed a Member of the United States (branch of service), 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 position upon which I am about to enter. (So help me God. optional)”
Officer's Oath: “I, (state your name), having been appointed a (rank) in the United States (branch of service), 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 office upon which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
And the Enlisted Oath: “I, (state your 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.”
One of the reasons given, as I read many different references and source materials is that this keeps officers from having to swear allegiance to any individual or to obey any orders that might be illegal. It also makes sure that Enlisted people know that they must obey orders from superiors. I must ask, are our Enlisted troops so unintelligent today that they must take an oath to obey orders from “officers” and only “officers” appointed over them.
Look at the oath for Enlisted again, there is no provision for any Enlisted person to ever obey the orders of another Enlisted person. Do any of the other Enlisted people remember having classes in boot camp that explained the oath of enlistment? I do. The class then went on to explain part of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Article 90 of the UCMJ covers obeying orders from Superior Officers and that such orders MUST be LEGAL. Article 91 of the UCMJ covers Orders from Warrant Officers, Noncommissioned Officers, or Petty Officers.
SO, here is the real reason for my rambling, in today’s Military do we need a different oath for Officers and Enlisted of would one suffice? I respectfully submit that one would and it sould read like this – very much like the Officer’s Oath of today:
“I, (state your name), having been appointed a Member of the United States (branch of service), 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 position upon which I am about to enter. (So help me God. optional)”
Recruiting
Constitution
Oath
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 7
7
7
0
I administered the oath to enlisted personnel countless times in Vietnam. (The Division Enlistment Officer and I shared a hooch and he was always out and about when his "clients" showed up to reup) I remember the oath then included the words "...lawful orders..." but seem to have disappeared. However, if you read various legal opinions, it is assumed that no one, officer or enlisted, is obligated to obey unlawful orders. As to why the oaths are different, it is primarily because their "agreements" are different. Enlisted personnel sign a contract for services. Warrant officers are issued a warrant and commissioned officers... well they are "commissioned" by Congress and the President to represent the government. They have innumerable rights and responsibilities that enlisted personnel don't have. Commissioned officers are agents of the US government. They may administer oaths, certify documents (like a notary public) and more. Even more, commissioned officers, like the President, take responsibility (or the good ones do) for the acts of the agencies/units they lead.
(7)
(0)
SSG Bill McCoy
NCO's, at least in the MP Corps can also "administer" Oaths IAW Art 136, UCMJ.
Article 136: Authority to Administer Oaths and Act as Notary. Specifically with DD Form 2823 - Witness Statements and Affidavits. MP NCO's can also sign as official police officers on various state forms such as verification of identity to renew, or replace soldiers' operator's licenses, etc.
This article establishes the authority to act as a notary to administer oaths. I gives the ranks and positions of those on active duty and inactive-duty training who can perform these functions. Those who have the general powers of a notary public include judge advocates, legal officers, summary courts-martial, adjutants, commanding officers of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. They cannot be paid a fee for notarial acts and no seal is required, only signature and title. Oaths may be administered by presidents and counsels of courts-martial and courts of inquiry, as well as officers taking a deposition, persons detailed to conduct an investigation, and recruiting officers.
Article 136: Authority to Administer Oaths and Act as Notary. Specifically with DD Form 2823 - Witness Statements and Affidavits. MP NCO's can also sign as official police officers on various state forms such as verification of identity to renew, or replace soldiers' operator's licenses, etc.
This article establishes the authority to act as a notary to administer oaths. I gives the ranks and positions of those on active duty and inactive-duty training who can perform these functions. Those who have the general powers of a notary public include judge advocates, legal officers, summary courts-martial, adjutants, commanding officers of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. They cannot be paid a fee for notarial acts and no seal is required, only signature and title. Oaths may be administered by presidents and counsels of courts-martial and courts of inquiry, as well as officers taking a deposition, persons detailed to conduct an investigation, and recruiting officers.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
Do we need a different oath...No...is this an issue...No. We have always had a different oath for officers and enlisted. I don't see this changing any time soon there is no need.
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
The officer and enlisted oaths are different because there is a difference in the onus between them.
Officers are appointed, they're not enlisted...and they're appointed OVER the enlisted. And whereas enlisted have a duty to follow the lawful orders of the officers appointed over them, officers have a duty to ensure their orders are, in fact lawful in the first place.
This is because, contrary to popular belief among many, not every situation is covered under the laws, rules, and regulation. But the onus is nonetheless upon the officers to make sure their orders ARE lawful.
I submit that there is no need for a "different oath", officer or enlisted. Rather, there is a need for people to UPHOLD the oath they swear in the first place.
This is really a matter of honor because regardless of the words of the oath, it's only as good as those who are taking it.
A person's honor is bound up in their freely given word. If one cannot be true to one's freely given word, then that person has no honor...and no amount of words in any oath will change that.
Officers are appointed, they're not enlisted...and they're appointed OVER the enlisted. And whereas enlisted have a duty to follow the lawful orders of the officers appointed over them, officers have a duty to ensure their orders are, in fact lawful in the first place.
This is because, contrary to popular belief among many, not every situation is covered under the laws, rules, and regulation. But the onus is nonetheless upon the officers to make sure their orders ARE lawful.
I submit that there is no need for a "different oath", officer or enlisted. Rather, there is a need for people to UPHOLD the oath they swear in the first place.
This is really a matter of honor because regardless of the words of the oath, it's only as good as those who are taking it.
A person's honor is bound up in their freely given word. If one cannot be true to one's freely given word, then that person has no honor...and no amount of words in any oath will change that.
(5)
(0)
CMDCM Gene Treants
Actually, Officers, Warrant Officers, and Petty Officers all have the obligation to ensure our orders are Legal. See both article 90 and 91 and the elements thereof.
I do agree that we do need to maintain our commitment and no amount of words in any order will ever replace personal honor. My Oath never expired, BTW.
I do agree that we do need to maintain our commitment and no amount of words in any order will ever replace personal honor. My Oath never expired, BTW.
(4)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google