Law school, the Bar exams ... much of it is a haze, but I recall taking the Oath like it was yesterday. Members of Congress swore another Oath when they took office.
There was a time when an Oath meant something - people were held to account if they violated it.
Law school, the Bar exams ... much of it is a haze, but I recall taking the Oath like it was yesterday. Members of Congress swore another Oath when they took office.
There was a time when an Oath meant something - people were held to account if they violated it.
It still means something the same as the oath I took to enter the Marine Corps in 68 and later as an NCO. There was no ignoring it or writing a letter. I would have gone to the Brig like so many I took there for disobeying their oath.
They should be jailed or charged just like the insurrectionists attacking the capitol. It is not an idea, it is a fact.
Attorneys are not protected from the law. They incited a riot. They failed to warn authorities. They n should be disbarred also. Their is no freedom from an oath,
His brother Charles was part of this too, and he holds a command post in the Navy. We must try to get all of them we possibly can. Bag 'em, tag 'em, and ship them to Gitmo for an extended, offline vacation.
I, too, swore an oath, and as one who holds a retired commission card, I still uphold it. Those are not just words you mouth as you raise your right had and swear, to the best of your ability, to (whatever version of "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States to the best of my ability" your particular oath held; mine also included "keep my private life unsullied, and to obey the laws of the land") but it is a promise to do just that. Apparently, an oath means nothing to some people. Not to me.
Ah, but remember, these people interpret the Constitution in their "own" way, twisting meanings to suit their warped views that many of us cannot agree with or understand the thought process behind. Similar to the supposed "originalist" judges who band together for their backwards viewpoints.
The oath they took says they will support the constitution, not interpret it to suit their individual beliefs. Upon enlisting or being drafted, the oath I took:
"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 . . . "
There is nothing there which says I can interpret it differently. The oath is different than the Constitution. Court may interpret it differently, this we know. This court is made up of "originalists." I believe they would hold to the same words even though law is interpretive. The oath is not law even though it is assertion. I would call it a rule.
I was bound by the UCMJ. If there was nothing in the UCMJ which covered an issue, there was always Article 38 which was called the "Captain's Cloak," which covered anything unspecified. This is outside of the topic.
Amen and good idea, Bill.
Law school, the Bar exams ... much of it is a haze, but I recall taking the Oath like it was yesterday. Members of Congress swore another Oath when they took office.
There was a time when an Oath meant something - people were held to account if they violated it.
Again - a great idea!
R Dooley:
It still means something the same as the oath I took to enter the Marine Corps in 68 and later as an NCO. There was no ignoring it or writing a letter. I would have gone to the Brig like so many I took there for disobeying their oath.
They should be jailed or charged just like the insurrectionists attacking the capitol. It is not an idea, it is a fact.
Attorneys are not protected from the law. They incited a riot. They failed to warn authorities. They n should be disbarred also. Their is no freedom from an oath,
And lose healthcare, pensions and pay back pay for when they began to break their oaths of office and to We The PeopleтАФ their employers.
Think Michael Flynn. I still think he should have been recalled to the military, put on trial, convicted and thrown in the brig.
His brother Charles was part of this too, and he holds a command post in the Navy. We must try to get all of them we possibly can. Bag 'em, tag 'em, and ship them to Gitmo for an extended, offline vacation.
Well said. There is no freedom from an oath, only the responsibility to uphold it.
AGREE!
This.
I, too, swore an oath, and as one who holds a retired commission card, I still uphold it. Those are not just words you mouth as you raise your right had and swear, to the best of your ability, to (whatever version of "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States to the best of my ability" your particular oath held; mine also included "keep my private life unsullied, and to obey the laws of the land") but it is a promise to do just that. Apparently, an oath means nothing to some people. Not to me.
The so-called "Oath Keepers" would more accurately be referred to as the "Oath BREAKERS."
Ah, but remember, these people interpret the Constitution in their "own" way, twisting meanings to suit their warped views that many of us cannot agree with or understand the thought process behind. Similar to the supposed "originalist" judges who band together for their backwards viewpoints.
The oath they took says they will support the constitution, not interpret it to suit their individual beliefs. Upon enlisting or being drafted, the oath I took:
"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 . . . "
There is nothing there which says I can interpret it differently. The oath is different than the Constitution. Court may interpret it differently, this we know. This court is made up of "originalists." I believe they would hold to the same words even though law is interpretive. The oath is not law even though it is assertion. I would call it a rule.
I was bound by the UCMJ. If there was nothing in the UCMJ which covered an issue, there was always Article 38 which was called the "Captain's Cloak," which covered anything unspecified. This is outside of the topic.
Just like the evangelical rabid right "interpreted" their professed Scripture in their lust for temporal power.
Yep.