Taking up arms against one’s country usually involves insurrection against the government for the purpose of setting your own people in place of the existing one (revolution) or leaving a government one doesn’t like (secession). The War for Independence (1776) was a successful secession from Britain. The Second War for Independence (1861) was less successful. I will not argue the causes for either, but point them out to lead into the following.
America finds itself in a unique position: Like other countries, we have a constitution but, unlike other countries, we actually believe it. Some of us swear (or swore) an oath to uphold it and, by extension, its amendments.
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; 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.
Of particular note: One notable difference between the officer and enlisted oaths is that the oath taken by officers does not include any provision to obey orders; while enlisted personnel are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey lawful orders, officers in the service of the United States are bound by this oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States. Hence, any order that violates the Constitution is unlawful. Given the dereliction of the SCOTUS, this may boil down to a matter of conscience. In uncharitable moments, I have called them the Robed Nazgul. I often wonder if Tolkein had nine rings by accident….
I pointed out amendments to illustrate no one has a problem with them, or the process. Amended correctly, by the people, is well within the scope of the thing. What is not in the scope is the suspension of amendments.
What we have now is the suspension of the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 10th Amendments through NDAA, et al. No right to habeas corpus, to confront accusers, have a trial (much less a speedy one), and others I am sure I have overlooked. Moreover, in no way was the suspension/revocation of those amendments put before a constitutional convention for discussion and voting.
Did we elect those representatives who passed it?
Does it matter?
Not to me.
They swore this oath, and apparently changed their minds:
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.
Don’t like your oath?
The observant will note it is exactly the same oath as for commissioned officers. So here we have two groups of people, one of which has disregarded its oath. We’ll see what the other group does soon enough, I reckon. There are a lot of people out there who won’t fight against their country, but certainly will for their oath and their children’s futures. This is lost on people who casually disregard theirs.
How long, and under how many presidents, have we watched these develop?
From The Declaration of Independence:
“He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”
Some will say that is a Dear John letter to King George, and they’re right. It is also a very good record of usurpations and a stern warning never, ever to forget where unchecked power leads. Keep an eye on it: The “long train of usurpations and abuses” will only grow longer, regardless of which party is in office, unless we turn them out.
No one wants to take up arms against his country. However…. Continued…
Delivered by The Daily Sheeple
We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).
Contributed by A Quiet Man of Western Rifle Shooters Association.