Which are you?The individual that understands his Oath recognises that he made a solemn promise to the people of these United States,not to any political party,any politician,but to the people.An oath taker has little insight into the depths of that solemn promise,and would foolishly think that his or her oath expires when rotating out.The Oath,once taken,never expires and the responsibilities that go with it do not expire either.That being said,i would suggest checking out Oath Keepers.org to reaffirm the solemn promise that each of us made,and possibly gain additional knoweledge regarding your Oath.

I took the Oath "to defend" a number of times in the military and as a civilian... and I promised to live by it and will...

I think I did pretty well... except for that whole "so help me God" thing.

quote:

Originally posted by billbright:
I think I did pretty well... except for that whole "so help me God" thing.

Ditto, but then I (as everybody else) had the option to "affirm!"

quote:

Originally posted by KJ1110:

quote:

Originally posted by billbright:
I think I did pretty well... except for that whole "so help me God" thing.

Ditto, but then I (as everybody else) had the option to "affirm!"

They still tacked on that "so help me god" at the end. Dumb and dumber...

quote:

Originally posted by billbright:

quote:

Originally posted by KJ1110:

quote:

Originally posted by billbright:
I think I did pretty well... except for that whole "so help me God" thing.

Ditto, but then I (as everybody else) had the option to "affirm!"

They still tacked on that "so help me god" at the end. Dumb and dumber...

It was lined out on my contract!

Well, leaving aside for the moment that the initial post is nothing more than an advertisement for your little social club...

I looked at the "Declaration of Orders We Will Not Obey." Most of them were unobjectionable at first glance...but this one:

quote:

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.

That's a little disturbing when considered in the light of the Civil War and the constitutional precedents set at that time. This declaration seems tantamount to encouraging secession - or at the least, planning to commit treason if and when some state elects to repeat the Confederacy's mistake.

I also found it a little disturbing that they claim the Declaration of Independence as one of the defining documents of our government. At best (and even this is a stretch) I would consider it a defining document of the government under the Articles of Confederation - which was replaced by our current form of government under the Constitution. In my opinion, the Declaration is a valuable and inspirational historical document with no legal significance whatsoever.

But the whole "encouraging secession" thing is worse.

quote:

Originally posted by BobApril:
Well, leaving aside for the moment that the initial post is nothing more than an advertisement for your little social club...

I looked at the "Declaration of Orders We Will Not Obey." Most of them were unobjectionable at first glance...but this one:

quote:

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.

That's a little disturbing when considered in the light of the Civil War and the constitutional precedents set at that time. This declaration seems tantamount to encouraging secession - or at the least, planning to commit treason if and when some state elects to repeat the Confederacy's mistake.

I also found it a little disturbing that they claim the Declaration of Independence as one of the defining documents of our government. At best (and even this is a stretch) I would consider it a defining document of the government under the Articles of Confederation - which was replaced by our current form of government under the Constitution. In my opinion, the Declaration is a valuable and inspirational historical document with no legal significance whatsoever.

But the whole "encouraging secession" thing is worse.

I guess this means that they will refuse to obey the Patriot Act, or is this only fashionable now that Mr. Bush is out of office?

quote:

Originally posted by ThumperNM:
I guess this means that they will refuse to obey the Patriot Act, or is this only fashionable now that Mr. Bush is out of office?

It's still not fashionable. Every provision of the Patriot Act appears to still be in place, and Democrats are falling all over themselves to make sure none of them end under the sunset provisions in the original law. And President Obama's DoJ is still taking every opportunity in court to argue for increased executive privilege and immunity under the State Secrets claim. Our loss of civil rights has continued under Obama in much the same direction as it went under Bush.

Can anyone explain why opposition to the U.S. federal government is "treason" if the President is a Republican, but opposition to the U.S. federal government is "patriotism" if the President is a Democrat?

quote:

Originally posted by Fightdirector:
Can anyone explain why opposition to the U.S. federal government is "treason" if the President is a Republican, but opposition to the U.S. federal government is "patriotism" if the President is a Democrat?

John Bohner said that it was a "different time" when trying to explain why he didn't demand transparency during the Bush administration. I guess it was just a "different time".

The FALSE Paradigm of left/right or Democrap/Rethuglican is a non-issue.Either your Oath stands as a testament to your belief that ours is a Constitutional Republic that puts the chains on this behemoth in power,or you agree that ours is a democracy/mob rule,only being allowed what 51% say you are allowed.If it is repugnant to the Constitution,it is without force or effect,and thereby ILLEGAL.

quote:

Originally posted by cajuncustoms:
Either your Oath stands as a testament to your belief that ours is a Constitutional Republic that puts the chains on this behemoth in power,or you agree that ours is a democracy/mob rule,only being allowed what 51% say you are allowed.

Okay, let's test that. Get specific. First, who decides what the Constitution says? The commonly-accepted answer is that the Supreme Court interprets it - how do the Oath-Keepers feel about that? If not the courts, then who? Does each person determine it for himself?

Assuming that you're good with the standard view of Judicial Review...what about hot-button issues like abortion, gay rights, and so forth? When a Supreme Court (including state-level high courts) rules that homosexuals should have the same right to marry their partners as straights, do you accept that as a legitimate Constitutional decision, or do you retreat back into claims of "judicial activism" overruling "the morality and will of the people?" When the court finds a right to privacy that allows a woman control of her own body, even during pregnancy, do you accept that, or demand instead full civil rights for a small blob of undifferentiated cells?

What about religion, and religious freedom? Do the Oath-Keepers believe that ours is a Christian nation, founded on biblical principals, or a secular nation that reveres freedom of religion of all sorts? Does freedom of religion include freedom FROM religion? When a government official expresses support for a specific religion or denomination during the performance of his duties, is that an incident of personal expression, protected by the First Amendment, or is it government support for religion, forbidden by that same amendment?

Most of the generalities sound okay - except for that #5 I already mentioned and you failed to respond to. But the devil is in the details. What do you REALLY stand for?

quote:

Originally posted by BobApril:

quote:

Originally posted by cajuncustoms:
Either your Oath stands as a testament to your belief that ours is a Constitutional Republic that puts the chains on this behemoth in power,or you agree that ours is a democracy/mob rule,only being allowed what 51% say you are allowed.

Okay, let's test that. Get specific. First, who decides what the Constitution says? The commonly-accepted answer is that the Supreme Court interprets it - how do the Oath-Keepers feel about that? If not the courts, then who? Does each person determine it for himself?

Assuming that you're good with the standard view of Judicial Review...what about hot-button issues like abortion, gay rights, and so forth? When a Supreme Court (including state-level high courts) rules that homosexuals should have the same right to marry their partners as straights, do you accept that as a legitimate Constitutional decision, or do you retreat back into claims of "judicial activism" overruling "the morality and will of the people?" When the court finds a right to privacy that allows a woman control of her own body, even during pregnancy, do you accept that, or demand instead full civil rights for a small blob of undifferentiated cells?

What about religion, and religious freedom? Do the Oath-Keepers believe that ours is a Christian nation, founded on biblical principals, or a secular nation that reveres freedom of religion of all sorts? Does freedom of religion include freedom FROM religion? When a government official expresses support for a specific religion or denomination during the performance of his duties, is that an incident of personal expression, protected by the First Amendment, or is it government support for religion, forbidden by that same amendment?

Most of the generalities sound okay - except for that #5 I already mentioned and you failed to respond to. But the devil is in the details. What do you REALLY stand for?

quote:

Assuming that you're good with the standard view of Judicial Review...what about hot-button issues like abortion, gay rights, and so forth? When a Supreme Court (including state-level high courts) rules that homosexuals should have the same right to marry their partners as straights, do you accept that as a legitimate Constitutional decision, or do you retreat back into claims of "judicial activism" overruling "the morality and will of the people?" When the court finds a right to privacy that allows a woman control of her own body, even during pregnancy, do you accept that, or demand instead full civil rights for a small blob of undifferentiated cells?

The Constitution is the greatest governing document because its intentions were not to tell the public what to do but to tell the gov't what they can't do.

The activism by the courts has reversed the role of gov't.

And the "hot-button" issues you mentioned were not grass-roots uprising for equality but rather slick tactics to circumvent the constitution.

The 10th Amendment would solve ALL the "hot-button" issues. Allow the states to do as the citizens want, and when it eventually cannot be funded any longer and the state is broke and the citizens have vacated, then the original constitutional provisions are restored and the state will start over.

btw: gov'ts ALWAYS move toward totalitarianism. A gun to the back of your head or the wages ripped out of your paycheck has the same effect on you. Either method, you will be quiet as a mouse and hope they go away, but the Oath Keepers have realized they aren't leaving, and it will only get worse before it gets better.

quote:

but the Oath Keepers have realized they aren't leaving, and it will only get worse before it gets better.

'They' aren't leaving? Who's they?

You think this is the first bunch of anarchists led by a half-azzed lawyer using one amendment of the constitution to drive their agenda?

I'm fairly sure it's been done before...with ugly results.

I see Missouri's got a chapter...has anyone in the Show-Me State given thought to the logistics of seceding and still being landlocked by the 'enemy'? Got any trade partners in mind, or are you going to be self-sufficient? Think you'll be able to cross the border when you like? Keep your US Passport? Work or vacation outside Missouri without filling out forms and paying fees and giving up fingerprints and photographs?

quote:

Originally posted by soscorpio:
The activism by the courts has reversed the role of gov't.

I see. Again I ask - who interprets in the case of honest disagreement? Or even dishonest disagreement? Somebody has to decide - if not the courts, then who?

quote:

The 10th Amendment would solve ALL the "hot-button" issues. Allow the states to do as the citizens want, and when it eventually cannot be funded any longer and the state is broke and the citizens have vacated, then the original constitutional provisions are restored and the state will start over.

I see. So you're a strict "States Rights" fan, who wants each state to decide (using that same 51% mob rule method you detest at the Federal level). How do you feel about the 9th Amendment? I feel that it would be an even better justification for privacy rights (including abortion, gay rights, and so forth) than the current "penumbras and emanations" theory. But of course that would require the states to respect individual rights and protect against the tyranny of the majority.

Are you reading the ENTIRE Constitution, or just the bits and pieces that fit with your biases? How about the 14th Amendment? That's the one that causes the Bill of Rights to apply to the states. It was passed using constitutional processes, and has exactly the same force of law as any other constitutional provision. It is arguably MORE relevant than the 10th Amendment, as it was passed later, so overrules the 10th in the case of any conflict. (Just as the 12th Amendment overrode the Presidential election process in the original Constitution, and the 21st Amendment overrules the 18th.) It sounds like you are only upset about FEDERAL interference and judicial activism - if only those darned Feds would get out of the way, you and your buddies in your home state would create a conservative paradise where everyone would live in harmony...and those communo-fasco-liberal states on the coasts would descend into their deserved bankruptcy, corruption, and barbarism.

This adequately explains that #5 pro-secession issue I noted earlier, and confirms what I already suspected - I want nothing to do with your little secessionist club, and nothing to do with you. In fact, I would probably consider the Oath-Keepers as domestic enemies under the terms of my own oath to the Constitution and the country - except I doubt they have the initiative or competence to accomplish much more than whining about "them durned Feds" over a couple of beers on the back porch.

quote:

Originally posted by Yooper_tj:

I see Missouri's got a chapter...has anyone in the Show-Me State given thought to the logistics of seceding and still being landlocked by the 'enemy'? Got any trade partners in mind, or are you going to be self-sufficient? Think you'll be able to cross the border when you like? Keep your US Passport? Work or vacation outside Missouri without filling out forms and paying fees and giving up fingerprints and photographs?

Bye bye Fort Leonard Wood and Whiteman Air Force Base... and all the military dollars that went along with the personnel. No more federal highway dollars (you can maintain your own roads). No more federal money to help maintain your power plants (good luck keeping the lights on). Disaster relief during tornado season?.. that's your f#&king problem now. A lot of companies with a national presence (or that participate in interstate commerce) are probably going to pull their offices out your state (along with their personnel)... more tax dollars leaving your sinking ship. Since most of those leaving are going to be the big populations from the big cities, you'll have no one left to tax except the lower-middle income and destitute hillbillies. Hell, the metro areas of Kansas City and St Louis alone represent one half of the entire population.

What a utopia. Why, you could tax your remaining populace at three times the current rate and you still wouldn't be able to plug all the leaks. I'm sure the remaining citizens (heavily armed rednecks) are more than willing to tighten their belts towards your cause and that they won't rise up in rebellion towards their new Missouri leadership. Afterall, freedom comes at a high cost.

quote:

Originally posted by soscorpio:
The 10th Amendment would solve ALL the "hot-button" issues. Allow the states to do as the citizens want, and when it eventually cannot be funded any longer and the state is broke and the citizens have vacated, then the original constitutional provisions are restored and the state will start over.

Last time I looked, the Constitution didn't end at the end of the 10th Amendment - 18 more Amendments have been approved since then. And, as BobApril has noted, the 14th Amendment modifies the absolute "State's Rights" interpretation of the 10th Amendment.

No Constitutional Amendment is "written in stone" and un-changable or un-modifiable.

If the Constitution had ended after the 10th Amendment was written, an individual state (say, Georgia) could pass a law allowing non-Caucasians to own Caucasian slaves, and the federal government could not Constitutionally prevent it. But the 13th Amendment took away the right of an individual state to allow slavery - which, I guess to a 10ther, is a sign of a evil federal totalitarian government stepping on the poor little state's "rights" to make their own laws.

quote:

No Constitutional Amendment is "written in stone" and un-changable or un-modifiable.

Listen, the Bill of Rights are powers to limit the encroachment of gov't. Whenever modifications on them happen, they are taking away from our freedoms.

No amendment after the 12th has ever come from the people, they are all slick tactics by those that dwell in the shadows of power.

Why would you adore the thought that none are "written-in-stone"?

"A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference."
Thomas Jefferson

Botta Bing and Botta Boom--

There it is.

quote:

No amendment after the 12th has ever come from the people, they are all slick tactics by those that dwell in the shadows of power.

Anyone wanna guess what the Thirteenth Amendment might be that started the downfall of American Society?


I'm sure Section 3 of XIV burns...

quote:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same...

Then you get XV, XIX, and XXVI---Blacks, Women, and 18 year olds get the vote.

You spoiling for another War of Northern Aggression?

quote:

You spoiling for another War of Northern Aggression?

Another? When has Canada ever attacked?

quote:

Originally posted by soscorpio:

quote:

You spoiling for another War of Northern Aggression?

Another? When has Canada ever attacked?

I was actually thinking more like north of Wichita, or maybe Richmond. I wouldn't expect you to answer the question of the four amendments listed above outside the company of the similarly inclined.

Not a problem. You've made your position quite clear by drawing the line ahead of thirteen.

quote:

You've made your position quite clear by drawing the line ahead of thirteen.

And you have took a position that is woefully naive.

The amendments after the "original 12" were not wrote to limit the powers of gov't which was the intention of those previous to 13.

Crimes on humanity are not to be settled by amendments to the constitution.

Those laws are actually two-edged swords.

Yeah...so tie it all together for me. The thirteenth (abolishing slavery, but you knew that, right?)was written as an amendment to specifically over-rule areas of
Section 9 of Article I which allowed the continued importation slaves; Section 2 of Article IV which prohibited the provision of assistance to escaping persons and required their return if successful; Section 2 of Article I which defined other persons as 3/5 of a person in figuring each state's official population for representation and federal taxation; and Article V which prohibited any amendments or legislation changing the provision regarding slave importation until 1808...

You got a more proper way to correct flaws in the original document, or do you hold the framers as infallible and all-seeing?

quote:

You got a more proper way to correct flaws in the original document, or do you hold the framers as infallible and all-seeing?

Flaws? As God?

It is difficult to debate when one side attempts to obfuscate the words of the other but maybe you have no desire to actually look with a different perspective? In that case I'm outta here, your avatar represents a taunt.

However, if you would please destroy your move-on membership and come back for the protection of liberty, I will explain to you that those articles you reference actual protected the slaves.

If a slave were allowed more than a 3/5 vote, the south would have been motivated to increase slavery.

It was very ingenious the founders thought this out so well.

The slaves numbers would have increased for the pure sake of buying votes. The founders found a way to de-motivate them to buy even more people.

You see, history can be distorted to tell any story you want. Only when the facts are determined (I know, we're all very busy) will the actual truth ever be known. Q:why else would the gov't get involved with education?
A: only for the perpetuation of power silly.

quote:

Originally posted by soscorpio:

quote:

You got a more proper way to correct flaws in the original document, or do you hold the framers as infallible and all-seeing?

Flaws? As God?

It is difficult to debate when one side attempts to obfuscate the words of the other but maybe you have no desire to actually look with a different perspective? In that case I'm outta here, your avatar represents a taunt.

However, if you would please destroy your move-on membership and come back for the protection of liberty, I will explain to you that those articles you reference actual protected the slaves.

If a slave were allowed more than a 3/5 vote, the south would have been motivated to increase slavery.

It was very ingenious the founders thought this out so well.

The slaves numbers would have increased for the pure sake of buying votes. The founders found a way to de-motivate them to buy even more people.

You see, history can be distorted to tell any story you want. Only when the facts are determined (I know, we're all very busy) will the actual truth ever be known. Q:why else would the gov't get involved with education?
A: only for the perpetuation of power silly.

I'm so terribly sorry that my avatar can't approach the self-deprecation so evident in your avatar and yet so absent in your quasi-constitutional ramblings...

You've made but one response on-point to any of the questions at hand--you've offered no facts, but rather only one possible interpretation of the intent of the framers for one portion of one article, and I doubt that stuffing the ballot boxes with a larger population of slaves was the major concern. I've even heard 'round these parts that many of the framers were slaveowners themselves. Is that just another lie perpetuated by the Marxist Mainstream Media?

Your mathematical logic is a bit flawed as well...with only three fifths of a vote, you'd need ten slaves instead of just six to hold the same sway in Congress. I'm not seeing that as a great motivator to downsize the workforce on the ole plantation.

I suspect that the government got involved in education to keep a bunch of illiterate narrow-minded self-serving hicks from fouling the minds of generations of America's greatest assets--perhaps on the odd chance that each succeding generation might live a little longer and a little better than the last. With a little more education, the next generation will assure that when we're too crippled up to type and read that we'll be able to mix it up on a forum like this using only voices and eye-blinks.

quote:

I'm not seeing that as a great motivator to downsize the workforce on the ole plantation.

The founders wisely intended the states to be free to do as they wished as long as they did not infringe upon the basic rights of all humans inspired by God.

So it would have been illegal to "downsize" the workforce (which is a naive point) but to make it less desirable to increase the numbers of humans from third and fourth world countries.

When you side against freedom, you are by default siding with tyranny.

quote:

I suspect that the government got involved in education to keep a bunch of illiterate narrow-minded self-serving hicks from fouling the minds of generations of America's greatest assets--perhaps on the odd chance that each succeding generation might live a little longer and a little better than the last. With a little more education, the next generation will assure that when we're too crippled up to type and read that we'll be able to mix it up on a forum like this using only voices and eye-blinks.

So, these " bunch of illiterate narrow-minded self-serving hicks " are more of threat on their dirt-farms than self-serving bankers from foreign lands , which incidentally are the menace of the planet?

Sleep through life much?