Do officers have to uphold the Constitution, or the orders of Congress/SCOTUS?

[rambone]

What sense does it make to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, if in practice that means obeying everything that the other branches of government tell you to do? If this is the case, wouldn't it make more sense for officers swear an oath to obey Congress and the Supreme Court?

I wanted to see what everyone thought about this. Consider these opening quotes as conversation starters, pulled from another thread.

The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means. If they want to interpret law so as to abrogate what you perceive as your Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms, they are right and you are wrong. This applies all down the line where questions of Constitutional Law come up. I got into an almost nasty discussion with the guy over "Plain Language" and "Founders' Intent" and in the end it makes no difference, policy-wise, to the military hierarchy. They will follow the law, guided by their JAGs, and if the law can be twisted to encompass disarming the American populace - and if the Supreme Court agrees - they will order it done.

So which laws should they enforce? Is that their choice? I'm foreseeing the answer, "those that don't conflict with the Constitution", but that sets every single cop on the road up as being a judge, or more precisely, a Supreme Court Justice. No offense meant to any officer, but that is NOT their role. They're no more equipped to do that job than I (as a paramedic) am to be a neurosurgeon

No member of the Executive branch is free to abrogate his duty to uphold the constitution. Each individual takes an oath, and they are expected to understand that oath and live by that oath. This is an integral check and balance built into the system.

When Congress passes laws that betray the constitution, and the Supreme Court follows suit, then our liberty depends on the 3rd branch standing by its oath and refusing to enforce tyranny on the people. It will take bravery and commitment from people to go this road, but it is an integral safeguard for protecting our liberty.

If it were the duty of the executive branch to enforce every law, big or small, and to obey without question the other branches of government, then their oath would read as such. On the contrary, making them swear an oath to uphold the constitution forces them to think about what that document says and how it applies in their job. There have been, and will be, situations where duty demands that officers disagree with Congress and the Courts and refuse to follow orders.

But, if the Executive Branch doesn't want to handle all that responsibility, they can continue to defer their oath to the other branches. The "Just Following Orders" justification will live on to terrorize us once again. But this road leads to a situation where government has become destructive to liberty; in which case the people have the right to intervene and alter/abolish it, and to institute new government.

I continue to hold that officers have the power to use their conscience and their interpretation of the constitution in the course of their duty. Refuse to obey unconstitutional orders and refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws. Simply stand down. Do not elevate your paycheck to a higher place than your conscience and your sacred oath. Only individuals are responsible for their individual actions, and if they are complicit in tyranny and oppression, then they will be judged accordingly.

When it comes to things like gun confiscation, citizen internment camps, gold seizure, forced inoculations, et cetera, we had all better hope that some Oathkeepers step forward and prevent the enforcement of tyrannical laws. Realize that SCOTUS is fallible, and other checks and balances were put in place for this reason. Take some accountability for your own on-the-job decisions. Remember that everything Hitler did was perfectly legal according to their courts.

 

[dross]

This is where your philosophy crosses over and becomes religion.

To have a society in the real world, we have to account for imperfections and disagreements among free people. In a religion, the goal is to get everyone on the exact same page.

Having a society and a government will NEVER be perfect. A system must be in place to arbitrate honest disagreements.

You consistently start with the principle that you are right in all things and that the right choice is obvious. A disagreement about the right choice is a failing of character on the part of the person who disagrees with you. This is religion, not politics. You are at heart a prophet, Rambone. And you don't base societies on what the prophets say.

Your little model works fine for about ten seconds until I'm ordered to do something I think is unconstitutional. Now what? My superior insists that it's constitutional, I insist that it's not. What do we do now? Someone must decide who is right. As soon as that happens, some people will side with me, others with my superior. How do we resolve this? I know that in your world it's perfectly obvious what is and isn't Constitutional. I expect you'll say something condescending like "just read the words" or something like that. Yet people disagree.

Either each person gets to decide for themselves with no repurcussions, or some people will be punished when they and others insist they're just disobeying an unjust order.

Your system can't actually work in the real world. Except that you'd just educate everyone about the simple "truth" that is so obvious to you and that should be so obvious to everyone else. Religion.

 

[rambone]

This is where your philosophy crosses over and becomes religion.

To have a society in the real world, we have to account for imperfections and disagreements among free people. In a religion, the goal is to get everyone on the exact same page.

Having a society and a government will NEVER be perfect. A system must be in place to arbitrate honest disagreements.

You consistently start with the principle that you are right in all things and that the right choice is obvious. A disagreement about the right choice is a failing of character on the part of the person who disagrees with you. This is religion, not politics. You are at heart a prophet, Rambone. And you don't base societies on what the prophets say.

The choices will be very difficult, the paths will not be obvious, and not everybody will make the same decision. I have no illusions otherwise. If 10% of the enforcers would follow their conscience when outright tyranny becomes the law of the land, that might just be better than historical numbers from other oppressive periods of human history.

Your little model works fine for about ten seconds until I'm ordered to do something I think is unconstitutional. Now what? My superior insists that it's constitutional, I insist that it's not. What do we do now? Someone must decide who is right. As soon as that happens, some people will side with me, others with my superior. How do we resolve this? I know that in your world it's perfectly obvious what is and isn't Constitutional. I expect you'll say something condescending like "just read the words" or something like that. Yet people disagree.

Either each person gets to decide for themselves with no repurcussions, or some people will be punished when they and others insist they're just disobeying an unjust order.

What happens next? You make a decision and you live with the consequences. You will own that decision, nobody else. I didn't say that your good deeds would go unpunished. I didn't say it would be easy. I didn't say it would be painless. What an individual does depends on the person, and the value they place on doing the right thing, versus doing the expedient thing. Only the most virtuous people will have the mettle to stand up to the Machine, instead of executing evil order #XYZ.

Your system can't actually work in the real world. Except that you'd just educate everyone about the simple "truth" that is so obvious to you and that should be so obvious to everyone else. Religion.

If this is a bogus discussion, then so is the entire platform of Oathkeepers.
And so is the message of Sheriff Richard Mack.
And the Fully Informed Jury Association.
And a number of other organizations.

That's too bad that you think obeying an oath won't work in the real world. I guess I should feel shamed and marginalized now. You good; me bad. You live in the real world; me live in fake world. Your philosophy is valid; me philosophy religion. You're fair and objective; me think I'm right all the time.

 

[Double T]

Sadly, if you have kids your paycheck is of great importance. Especially if you have to buy diapers.

You talk about "oathkeepers", who does one make that oath to? And why stop at LEO/MIL/fed/POTUS/SCOTUS? Nurses make a pledge, as do physicians. Are we also "bad" for encouraging people to vaccinate? Or is it the government that mandates?


I think that while you may disagree, if a vaccine could be discovered to eliminate diabetes, would the government not try to mandate it? I would think they should considering our widening belts and increased DMII numbers in early adulthood.

Yes, it should be a choice, but when does one individuals "freedom" that could potentially harm 100's if not 1000's become enough of a danger to public well being that an agency need to intervene?

I agree that some immunizations should be a choice, but if your kid being unvaccinated could potentially kill my kid...I be damned if I didn't want your kid as far away from mine as possible.

There are 2 sides to everything my friend, and not always is there a clear cut answer.

 

[rambone]

Sadly, if you have kids your paycheck is of great importance. Especially if you have to buy diapers.

Its a dilemma alright. What price will people put on freedom and justice? How many diapers will it take to compel a man to oppress his neighbors? Will historians understand the choices that were made in the pursuit of life's comforts? Time will tell.

You talk about "oathkeepers", who does one make that oath to?

OathKeepers emphasizes that police officers and soldiers remember and keep their oaths of enlistment. They aren't just words, they should mean something. The oath is made in God's name.

And why stop at LEO/MIL/fed/POTUS/SCOTUS? Nurses make a pledge, as do physicians. Are we also "bad" for encouraging people to vaccinate? Or is it the government that mandates?

If they are private sector people then they are not my concern in this discussion. I mentioned "forced inoculations," with an emphasis on the forced. That is where the problem lies.

Forced inoculations are equivalent to gun confiscation in my opinion.

I think that while you may disagree, if a vaccine could be discovered to eliminate diabetes, would the government not try to mandate it? I would think they should considering our widening belts and increased DMII numbers in early adulthood.

Yes, it should be a choice, but when does one individuals "freedom" that could potentially harm 100's if not 1000's become enough of a danger to public well being that an agency need to intervene?

I have little doubt the day will come when government does try to mandate vaccines. I don't care if they are the best thing in the world. Forcing people to take mandatory injections is tyranny. Its the physical equivalent of rape; penetrating someone's body against their will.

I agree that some immunizations should be a choice, but if your kid being unvaccinated could potentially kill my kid...I be damned if I didn't want your kid as far away from mine as possible

If your vaccines actually work then you have nothing to fear.

 

[Double T]

Where's polio?

I suppose you are against nurses putting antibiotic in newborns eyes to prevent blindness and injections to help promote clotting?

Did you even know that that happens?

Also, what clinical evidence is there that vaccines are actually harmful? If anything, they may not last due to our advances in medicine and our increase in avg. length of life.

Forced vaccinations are not equivalent to gun seizure regardless of whatever slant you put on it. You can't get a "license" for you or your child to carry around X-virus which could potentially kill a child who is like me as a child.

Any time I was sick, I had to be admitted once my fever got greater than 100. I had febrile seizures and had to be monitored. Someone's child could have carried something that could potentially have killed me. THAT is why immunization is important. If you choose not to get immunized, keep yourself at home.

 

[Pocketman]

...
If this is a bogus discussion, then so is the entire platform of Oathkeepers.
And so is the message of Sheriff Richard Mack.
And the Fully Informed Jury Association.
And a number of other organizations.

Exactly! The three branches of government are defined within the Constitution. Per this same document, SCOTUS (not Oathkeepers) gets the final word interpreting what the Constitution actually means. So in answer to your OP, if Congress passes a law and SCOTUS affirms it, then that law is constituional.

Not perfect, but reality.

 

[euby]

I know I'm glad to see some sheriff's out west standing up for the rights of the people against the federal government...bout time!!!

 

[rambone]

Exactly! The three branches of government are defined within the Constitution. Per this same document, SCOTUS (not Oathkeepers) gets the final word interpreting what the Constitution actually means. So in answer to your OP, if Congress passes a law and SCOTUS affirms it, then that law is constituional.

Not perfect, but reality.

Ok, the lawyers have done us in. Should the enforcers refuse to obey?

The Supreme Court has decided by 5-4 decision that the Federal Assault Handgun Ban of 2015 is in line with the constitution. The law prescribes that a door-to-door confiscation occur. Should the members of the 3rd branch be taught to blindly follow orders of the superior branches? Should there be an extra check and balance in here somewhere?

 

[mrjarrell]

The fault lies in the Constitution itself. The Founders failed to put in a penalty clause for violations of the Constitution or BoR. That's something that could be corrected via Amendment. If there were teeth breaking ones oath and violating the Constitution would cease overnight.

_TREASON!_, by L. Neil Smith

 

[thebishopp]

Where's polio?

I suppose you are against nurses putting antibiotic in newborns eyes to prevent blindness and injections to help promote clotting?

Did you even know that that happens?

Also, what clinical evidence is there that vaccines are actually harmful? If anything, they may not last due to our advances in medicine and our increase in avg. length of life.

Forced vaccinations are not equivalent to gun seizure regardless of whatever slant you put on it. You can't get a "license" for you or your child to carry around X-virus which could potentially kill a child who is like me as a child.

Any time I was sick, I had to be admitted once my fever got greater than 100. I had febrile seizures and had to be monitored. Someone's child could have carried something that could potentially have killed me. THAT is why immunization is important. If you choose not to get immunized, keep yourself at home.

You are using the "greater good" argument.

That is a dangerous one as many many many "mandates" can be made by the government for "your own good" and the "good of all".

If you are of opinion that our constitution grants us rights and that those rights are not "inalienable" (the base philosophy of our country that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights) then we will never agree.

In fact you should also be prepared to have "mandated" or "regulated" any of the rights graciously granted to you by out government for "the greater good".


As far as the supreme court goes... again I bring up Jefferson vs. Marshall.

 

[thebishopp]

The fault lies in the Constitution itself. The Founders failed to put in a penalty clause for violations of the Constitution or BoR. That's something that could be corrected via Amendment. If there were teeth breaking ones oath and violating the Constitution would cease overnight.

_TREASON!_, by L. Neil Smith

I agree with this. I think our founders were a bit too idealistic in thinking that the people themselves would not stand for it.

 

[Pocketman]

Ok, the lawyers have done us in. Should the enforcers refuse to obey?

The Supreme Court has decided by 5-4 decision that the Federal Assault Handgun Ban of 2015 is in line with the constitution. The law prescribes that a door-to-door confiscation occur. Should the members of the 3rd branch be taught to blindly follow orders of the superior branches? Should there be an extra check and balance in here somewhere?

If one has sworn to uphold the Constitution, then yes, this is a lawful order and should be followed. Let's not forget though that citizens have a responsibility in this also. (The "extra check and balance.") If we elect legislators who would pass such a law, and appoint justices who uphold it, then we are also culpable.

What would we have if people only had to follow laws they personally support?

 

[billmyn]

i'm not a political person , i'm not a highly educated person , i was , am and always will be a soldier (11MB) mechanized infantry. and i swore a oath but before that oath i had to follow my conscience and do what i thought was right know what i knew in my heart was right and face the consequences of my actions not looking for approval just do what i knew was right . i believe that every person on this planet has that responsibility to themselves there family and there country . and i pray that i'm not the only person that fells that way . if this post doesn't apply then i apologize but i felt that it did .

 

[level.eleven]

Exactly! The three branches of government are defined within the Constitution. Per this same document, SCOTUS (not Oathkeepers) gets the final word interpreting what the Constitution actually means. So in answer to your OP, if Congress passes a law and SCOTUS affirms it, then that law is constituional.

Not perfect, but reality.

Where in the Constitution does it state that SCOTUS is the arbiter of constitutionality? It is my understanding that it doesn't, rather judicial review was "discovered" during Marbury v. Madison.

Article Three of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Liberty Sanders]

This is where your philosophy crosses over and becomes religion.

To have a society in the real world, we have to account for imperfections and disagreements among free people. In a religion, the goal is to get everyone on the exact same page.

Having a society and a government will NEVER be perfect. A system must be in place to arbitrate honest disagreements.

You consistently start with the principle that you are right in all things and that the right choice is obvious. A disagreement about the right choice is a failing of character on the part of the person who disagrees with you. This is religion, not politics. You are at heart a prophet, Rambone. And you don't base societies on what the prophets say.

Your little model works fine for about ten seconds until I'm ordered to do something I think is unconstitutional. Now what? My superior insists that it's constitutional, I insist that it's not. What do we do now? Someone must decide who is right. As soon as that happens, some people will side with me, others with my superior. How do we resolve this? I know that in your world it's perfectly obvious what is and isn't Constitutional. I expect you'll say something condescending like "just read the words" or something like that. Yet people disagree.

Either each person gets to decide for themselves with no repurcussions, or some people will be punished when they and others insist they're just disobeying an unjust order.

Your system can't actually work in the real world. Except that you'd just educate everyone about the simple "truth" that is so obvious to you and that should be so obvious to everyone else. Religion.

I've been there and done that.

When, as a Cincinnati Police lieutenant, I took a public posture in defense of the 2nd Amendment which eventually led to my election to the NRA Board of Directors, my superiors lost their minds.

My oath of office called for me to do essentially three things:

Support the Constitution of The United States;

Support the Constitution of The State of Ohio;

Enforce the laws of the State of Ohio and the City of Cincinnati.

You will note that these responsibilities are in a certain order. I found this to be the case with all such oaths. In my opinion this prioritizes the responsibilities. If one aspect of the oath comes into conflict with another, the priority decides the course of action.

During my tenure with CPD Cincinnati City Council passed both a militia rifle ban and a fifteen day waiting period, both clearly unconstitutional. I naturally took a public posture in opposition to these laws, appearing on TV, on radio, and at numerous public events.

My superiors took the attitude that I owed my loyalty to them PERSONALLY and to no one or nothing else. My attitude, which I stated publicly, was that I owed my allegiance to the Constitution and to the public that we serve.

I will not attempt to recount everything that occurred in the war that ensued between myself and the government establishment of Cincinnati/Hamilton County (it would cover many pages). It did result in the murder of one civilian and two assassination attempts made on me. My superiors simply could not refute my arguments in favor of the 2nd Amendment and they knew it. Their solution was simply to try to eliminate me.

Ultimately, an individual in public service who takes an oath of office must decide, based on his own conscience, to whom he owes his loyalty. The argument can be made that a police officer may not decide for himself the constitutionality of a law but must simply enforce it until courts intervene.

But when a government becomes out-of-control and power mad, a line will be crossed and public servants must make a decision.

If the Indiana State Legislature passes a law reinstituting slavery, do I REALLY have to wait for a court to declare it unconstitutional before I state publicly that I won't enforce it? Would anyone here WANT me too?

This has become such a pervasive problem that it led to the establishment of the OATHKEEPERS (I am a card-carrying member) to let the powers-that-be know that there are some of us who will NOT use coercive power to subvert the Constitution.

"I was just obeying orders" didn't fly at Nuremberg, and it doesn't fly now.

 

[steveh_131]

This is where your philosophy crosses over and becomes religion.

You're the last person I would have expected to respond negatively to the concept of something like the Oath Keepers.

Has someone else taken over your account?

 

[steveh_131]

This has become such a pervasive problem that it led to the establishment of the OATHKEEPERS (I am a card-carrying member) to let the powers-that-be know that there are some of us who will NOT use coercive power to subvert the Constitution.

"I was just obeying orders" didn't fly at Nuremberg, and it doesn't fly now.

Here's a guy who knows the 'real world' first hand from an Officer's perspective, and responded admirably to these pressures.

Well said.

 

[Pocketman]

Where in the Constitution does it state that SCOTUS is the arbiter of constitutionality? It is my understanding that it doesn't, rather judicial review was "discovered" during Marbury v. Madison.

Article Three of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, you may be technically correct, but it's been the interpreted "law" of the land since 1803.

In regards to Liberty's post, he did the right thing by exercising his right as a citizen to campaign against the ordinance. However, his situation is different than what Rambone posted. Had SCOTUS ruled Cincinnati's ordinance as constitutional, Liberty's loyalty and oath may have made his decision more difficult. He would still have the opportunity to work toward having the ordinance repealed. Don't like a law or its interpretation, then campaign against it. It's a fundamental right and obligation.

 

[rambone]

If one has sworn to uphold the Constitution, then yes, this is a lawful order and should be followed.

Let's not forget though that citizens have a responsibility in this also. (The "extra check and balance.")

The peaceful check & balance would be for the Executive Branch to stands up against the others and refuse to oppress the citizens.

If it goes beyond that, the next check and balance won't be so peaceful. They want my guns, they'll have to come take them.

If we elect legislators who would pass such a law, and appoint justices who uphold it, then we are also culpable.

But 51% of the people aren't supposed to be able to strip the rights of the 49%.

What would we have if people only had to follow laws they personally support?

We'd have more guns and more liberty.

Certainly a better world than the "Just Following Orders" outcome.