OATHS

Rodger Clemens, an ace pitcher for Major League Baseball (MLB) was indicted for perjury by the federal government.  Forget for the moment, that the federal government has no business in this Constitutional Republic of Sovereign Union States while attempting to protect the Sovereign Union State Citizens to police the goings on of the MLB players within the Union States.   If you will note, perjury is violating your oath to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”  So in essence, Roger is being accused of violating his oath.  Now it strikes me as quite odd that when we swear in our public servants why they don’t expose themselves to the same risks that Rodger did as being a witness.  While “perjury” is testifying to something that isn’t true by saying that it is a person violates his oath by telling the falsehood.  He promised to tell the truth and didn’t.   In other words, he breached his verbal contract to tell the truth.  Why isn’t then that a person’s Oath of Office is also a verbal contract to be administered as such on the same parameters as perjury?  The answer lies in the words.  As you will observe below, we offer them Oaths that are nebulous inferences with no meaningful substance.

 Presidents Oath:

 “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.”

             It might do us a better service to We the People and their heirs to have the word obey in the second line, i.e. “preserve, protect, defend and obey the constitution of the United States.”

 Senators Oath:

 “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 question is, does any Senator who votes for an unconstitutional Bill violate his oath of office.  I don’t think he does because the terms “support and defend” are too nebulous and wishy washy to provide any grounds to prove the negative of them.  Again, I would much prefer that the word “obey” found its way in that oath.

 Oaths for the House of Representatives:

 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.

 Again, the oath is in want of the term “obey.”   Actually in a political sense, just what do the terms support and defend connote?  Since the members of the Senate and House of Representative have identical oaths, they need something more in their oaths than “support and defend the Constitution.”   What is not supporting or not defending?  What specific facts would support the charge of perjury or Breach of Contract for not supporting and not defending?  When a person tells a lie when he swore to tell the truth, the transcript of the lie proves the act of perjury, Breach of Promise to perform.  What are the acts of not supporting and/or not defending? 

 The exact same thing is true for New York State oath  for employees taking office or positions of authority.  The “one size fits all oath” for such new officials is as follows:

 Section 1. Members of the legislature, and all officers, executive and judicial,  except  such  inferior  officers as shall be by law exempted, shall, before they enter on the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: “I  do  solemnly  swear (or  affirm)  that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution  of  the  State  of  New  York,  and  that  I  will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of …………, according to  the  best  of  my  ability; “

 New York State feels that supporting the Constitution is sufficient.  Supporting the Constitution(s) does not anywhere near come close to obeying the directives and prohibitions of a constitution.  The problem I have is that I can’t figure out how an officer of New York State can be found guilty of NOT supporting a document.  I’m supporting the Constitution if I put a pocket edition in my pocket and, at the same time, I’m defending it if I have a copy in my lockbox.  So, if I’m an officer of New York, for the life of me, I can’t figure out how you are going to put me in jail for not supporting or defending the Constitution for the United States or any one of the Union States even if I go about my business saying that the United States of America is a democracy.  That’s why each and every State and Federal Oath needs to be revamped to include the term “obey” with respect to each of their Constitutions.  Supporting connotes an audience like secondary involvement; a role of no direct involvement, if you will.  On the other hand, “obey” connotes a direct involvement of the matter at hand and leaves no doubt about what’s expected.  In fact, I will go so far as to suggest that the wording of the oath for any and all agents of government prior to their elected or appointed position include the terms:  “I solemnly swear (or affirm) to obey all the directives and prohibitions of the Constitution for the United States (and the Union State of ________).”  That verbiage or language leaves nothing to interpretation or opinion.  Man, watch the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth to stop that from happening.

 As an aside, I just looked up the oath of Office for the state of Wyoming prescribed by the Wyoming Constitution., To wit:

OATH OF OFFICE

 PRESCRIBED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF WYOMING

 I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the state of Wyoming; that I have not knowingly violated any law related to my election or appointment, or caused it to be done by others; and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity.

 

______________________________________

Signed by  Federal or Union State Elected Official

 What a surprise!  Now I’m off the hook to go back and add the Oath issue to my additions necessary to cause the Union State of Wyoming to regain its sovereignty proposed as a 10th Amendment Resolution.  The Citizens of Wyoming should be proud of their Constitution and the levers it gives them to suspend and eliminate skullduggery in their state government.

 Hats off to the Sovereign State of Wyoming for they have incorporated the muscle to keep it that way (sovereign) by their Oaths of Office.   May the other Union States find the will and the way to follow suit.

 

Leave a Reply