Sacred Honor: Our Oath to Support and Defend
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensible supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. … Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths…” –President George Washington (1796)
In 1776, an extraordinary group of men signed a document that affirmed their God-given right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as “endowed by their Creator.” By attaching their signatures to our great Declaration of Independence, they, in effect, were signing their death warrants in defense of Essential Liberty.
Indeed, the last line of our Declaration reads, “For the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.”
Many of these men, and many of their countrymen, the first generation of American Patriot, would die fighting for American liberty.
A decade later, their liberty having been won at great cost, our Founders further codified their independence and interdependence by instituting yet another historic document, our Constitution.
Our Constitution, as written and ratified, stipulates in its preface that it is “ordained and established” by the people to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” To that end, it established a Republic, not a popular democracy, which is to say it affirmed the primacy of Rule of Law over rule of men.
Accordingly, the first order of business for those elected to national office is that they be bound by oath to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution under which they were duly elected.
For those elected to the presidency, Article II, Section 1, which specifies: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: “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.”
On 30 April 1789, America’s first Commander in Chief, President George Washington, took his presidential oath of office with his hand on a Bible opened to the book of Deuteronomy, Chapter 28. He ended his oath with “So help me God,” which was added to military oaths for officers by Act of Congress 29 September 1789.
In his “Inaugural Speech to Both Houses of Congress,” President Washington said: “It would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect.” Such was the conduct of his administration.
In his Farewell Speech of 19 September 1796, George Washington concluded with these words: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of man and citizens. … Let it be simply asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
Likewise Article VI, clause three specifies: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…
Commissioned officers and enlisted military personnel are also required by statute (Section 3331, Title 5 and 10 U.S.C. § 502, respectively) to “solemnly swear, 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…” Commissioned officers (O-1 through O-10, and W-2 through W-5 [chief warrant officers]) receive commissions under the authority of the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. Warrant officers (WO-1) receive their warrant under the authority of their respective service secretary.
Notably, the officer’s oath doesn’t include any provision that they obey orders, however, the enlisted oath specifies, “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.” However, the UCMJ clearly establishes that enlisted personnel are bound to obey only “lawful orders.” The “I was only following orders” defense has not sufficed since first tested in 1799.
National Guard officers and enlisted personnel “solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of (…) against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of (…).” The parameters of “lawful orders” also applies to the Guard oaths.
Notably, however, the activist cadres, surrogates for the Democrat Party, are undertaking an end run to remove “So Help Me God” from military oaths, along with other measures to remove of all vestiges of faith from the military services.
Thus, we should pay special attention to the words, “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…”
All of these oaths mandate the preservation, protection, support and defense of our Constitution as ratified, not the so-called “living constitution” as amended by judicial activists populating what Thomas Jefferson predicted would become “the despotic branch.” Thus, their is a growing chorus of concern over the question of what constitutes “lawful orders,” when a Commander in Chief does not abide by his own oath?
While uniformed Americans serving our nation defend our Constitution with their lives, most elected officials debase it with all manner of extra-constitutional empowerment of the central government and abuse of their own limited authority. Military service personnel who violate the Constitution are remanded for courts-martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, while politicians who violate the Constitution are remanded for – re-election.
On that note, “Barack Hussein Obama” and his Leftist NeoCom cadres have made a greater mockery of our Constitution than any administration in history. Clearly, Obama and his ilk have no history of honoring, or intention to honor their oaths and, in fact, have no context for such honor. They are intent on “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
Some liberals who believe themselves to be “patriots” have asked, “Can’t I be a bona fide Patriot and support Barack Obama?”
In a word … NO.
In the spirit of charity, perhaps some leftist politico supporters, who self-identify as patriots, are just grossly misinformed about our Constitution, our history and their own civic duty. Of course, they would likewise be grossly deluded about their identity, but perhaps the delusion is temporary.
I would suggest that leftist “patriots” are nothing more than “sunshine patriots,” as Thomas Paine wrote, who “will in crisis, shrink from the service of his country.”
At its core, the word “patriot” has direct lineage to those who fought for American independence and established our constitutional republic. That lineage has descended most directly through our history with those who have been entrusted “to support and defend” our Constitution – more specifically, those who have been faithful to, and have abided by, that oath. As previously noted, by “our Constitution,” I am referring to the United States Constitution, not the adulterated vestigial remains that liberals call “the living constitution.”
I have taken oaths seven times in the service of my community, my state and my country. But I did not have to take an oath to understand my obligations as a citizen “to support and defend” our Constitution. Further, I also note that all duly administered oaths are binding indefinitely – there is no duration specified or defined. Thus, we are bound by our oaths until death do us part.
So, does the title of “Patriot” apply to an individual who votes for a man who has not honored his public oaths of office previously, and has given no indication he intends to “bear true faith and allegiance to the same” as president – a man who subscribes to the errant notion of a “living constitution” which, in his own words, “breaks free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution”?
No authentic Patriot would support those who violate their sacred oaths.
Unfortunately, in this most recent election, we saw even a handful of flag-rank military officers who have no more reverence for their oaths than Obama. However, they are the exception, not the rule.
Obama’s mantra, “change,” is a euphemism for constitutional abrogation – an incremental encroachment on liberty until, at last, liberty is lost.
Our nation’s second president, John Adams, warned, “A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”
As for Obama’s deception about his own patriotic pedigree, I commend the words of our nation’s first president, George Washington: “Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism. …[W]here is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths…?”
Regarding the Presidential Oath of Office, Justice Joseph Story wrote: “[T]he duty imposed upon him to take care, that the laws be faithfully executed, follows out the strong injunctions of his oath of office, that he will ‘preserve, protect, and defend the constitution.’ The great object of the executive department is to accomplish this purpose.” He wrote further that if the president does not honor his oath, his office “will be utterly worthless for … the protection of rights; for the happiness, or good order, or safety of the people.”
Of course, protagonists of the Socialist Democratic Party aim to further constrain the rights of the people by advancing centralized government control through economic regulation and forced income redistribution, all in the name of “happiness, good order, and safety of the people,” but in direct violation of their oaths.
If an President does not honor his constitutional oath, why would anyone extend him the honor of its highest constitutional office? Indeed, anyone having taken that oath would be in direct violation of its mandate to “support and defend THE Constitution” should they support extra-Constitutional orders from superiors who do not honor their sacred oath.