Is an oath of office binding?

[AlanM]

I've been researching oaths that people swear to. Specifically oaths of office for politicians, the military oaths taken by officers and enlisted, oaths of state, county, city officials and law enforcement personal.

The shortest oath I've found is the US Presidential oath of office.

"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."

I posed a version of this question on Quora and got response that basically said that the oath is binding but then felt that the politician that violated their oath could be indicted under violation of color of the law.

Just today I found this in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office

"Under the laws of a state, it may be considered treason or a high crime to betray a sworn oath of office."
HOWEVER that site covers laws of other countries and the state mentioned refers to a country.

Now, that being where I'm coming from, here's my question/proposal.

I feel that politicians that swear an oath of office with wording similar to the Presidential Oath that vote to enact laws that violate the Second Amendment of the US Constitution should be brought up on charges.

Barring that, at least the individual should be informed of our opinion and that we will flood all possible media prior to their re-election bid indicating their violation of their oath.

I'm asking here to get a discussion started. I'd like to see this go nation wide.

[EricTheBald]

An oath is only binding if the person who swore it wants it to be.

As for prosecutions of oath-breakers, that a political issue. And by "political" I don't mean left vs right; I am using the word in it's purer sense.

[schmieg]

A blatant violation of an oath of office often involves the violation of statutory law. Members of the military have been subject to court martial for violations under the UCMJ. To the best of my recollection, the violation of the oath is not the specific charge, but it has been included in argument before the jury and the court. For politicians, it could be the basis for impeachment, but there would probably still be underlying charges that would establish the violation of the oath, so the violation of the oath encompasses the other charges and would probably only be charged as an additional gotcha by whichever political faction initiated the prosecution.

[jeep45238]

A blatant violation of an oath of office often involves the violation of statutory law. Members of the military have been subject to court martial for violations under the UCMJ. To the best of my recollection, the violation of the oath is not the specific charge, but it has been included in argument before the jury and the court. For politicians, it could be the basis for impeachment, but there would probably still be underlying charges that would establish the violation of the oath, so the violation of the oath encompasses the other charges and would probably only be charged as an additional gotcha by whichever political faction initiated the prosecution.

Bingo.

[EricTheBald]

A blatant violation of an oath of office often involves the violation of statutory law.

If you break a law and nobody does anything about it, does the law really exist as more than words on a page?

[jeep45238]

A blatant violation of an oath of office often involves the violation of statutory law.

If you break a law and nobody does anything about it, does the law really exist as more than words on a page?

If the federal government has to estimate how many ways you can wind up behind bars, do you trust the law to begin with?

[EricTheBald]

You know those ads on pornhub that claim there are dozens of women within a few miles of you that want to hook up?

Yeah...

I trust THOSE more than I trust the government.

[Klingon00]

The constitution institutes three branches of government, where any two can hold a third accountable.

For example, if the president is seen to have violated his oath, Congress is within its powers to impeach and should the President be found guilty of the law, removed from office. Likewise, the courts can put injunctions on the Presidents orders if found to be unconstitutional (a violation of oath).

Unfortunately, impeachment is frequently used as a political tool as the standard for impeachment is at a very low bar. Removal from office does require a much higher bar.

When it comes to enforcement of the oath of office for lower government positions like law enforcement for example, it is left up to the chain of command, and/or city council and whatever powers they've delegated to enforce. Again, frequently becomes a political tool depending on who holds the reigns of power.

I hold no illusion that such a rule wouldn't likewise be used as a political bludgeon against the opponents of whoever holds a majority of government levers of power.

I know the Democrats would very much like to use such a rule against Trump for example, especially if they can somehow prevent him from being able to run for office.
Regardless of your opinion on Trump, it's use would not stop at just blocking him.

[M-Quigley]

self deleted.

[Sevens]

In the age of the Covid-19, if you are going to ask folks to discuss the value and validity of an oath, you'd be remiss to skip past the Hippocratic oath.

It's been urinated and defecated upon in the last couple couple couple months.

[bignflnut]

Been discussing this concept in another thread, but it's applicable to accountability:

Leigh Dundas and Miki Klann speak to the Scottsdale Unified School District in Arizona. During the meeting, Miki declares her intention to file a claim against the Governor’s surety bond on behalf of the SUSD board members. Each member of the board will be charged with practicing medicine without a license, child abuse, segregation and inappropriate sexual material in the school libraries.


Miki served each board member with 10 letters of intent by 10 different parents. Each claim carries a liability of up to 100K – this means each board member carries a total liability of $1 million in the event that the claims are filed. Now the board members have 5 days to rectify the situation or the parents of SUSD will file the claim.

https://tinyurl.com/YESrunning


God Bless Dundas and Klann in their righteous effort.

https://bondsforthewin.com/stop-the-tyranny-fight-back/

[pirateguy191]

Been discussing this concept in another thread, but it's applicable to accountability:

Leigh Dundas and Miki Klann speak to the Scottsdale Unified School District in Arizona. During the meeting, Miki declares her intention to file a claim against the Governor’s surety bond on behalf of the SUSD board members. Each member of the board will be charged with practicing medicine without a license, child abuse, segregation and inappropriate sexual material in the school libraries.


Miki served each board member with 10 letters of intent by 10 different parents. Each claim carries a liability of up to 100K – this means each board member carries a total liability of $1 million in the event that the claims are filed. Now the board members have 5 days to rectify the situation or the parents of SUSD will file the claim.

https://tinyurl.com/YESrunning


God Bless Dundas and Klann in their righteous effort.

https://bondsforthewin.com/stop-the-tyranny-fight-back/

Excellent.

[bignflnut]

We've all seen that simple petitions to the government are ignored or rejected.

As the trucker convoy has shown, even when making a clear and public point, TPTB resort to simple name-calling, ad hominem shaming in order to "Other" people who have Rights and a valid point to make: Racist, bigot, anti-democracy, insurrectionist, terrorist, nazi, etc...we've all heard the litany.

Freedom of Assembly in order to make a petition heard, as the convoy demonstrates, is a powerful option.

Similarly, making a legal demand that must be answered, as the surety bond advocates demonstrate, is powerful.

Point being, TPTB have avoided going full military force, preferring a stealth approach that gains people's consent via propaganda and deception. People can see that in greater numbers currently than the tinfoil keyboard warrior trolls - like myself - in the past.

The Freedom of Assembly route, while admittedly more powerful (due to the scope and coverage that wakes more people up), will not reach down and destroy the substructure in local governments that allowed us to be subjugated for the last 23+ months.

You're correct to have the conversation about holding politicians and office holders accountable. We must generate legal demands that may very well be ignored by the courts, but the surety bond companies do not want this smoke. Utilizing the oath of office to expect certain performance in the execution of duties is a sufficient basis to make some noise.

[AlanM]

[bignflnut]

We, as a People, lack the will to enforce said constraints.

We have been sold a false Gospel of Nice, where confrontation is bullying and bullying is terrorism. So be nice and let people run you over. Started before the Politically Correct 90's, but nobody in the Boomer Generation wanted to put a stop to it because the economic times were good. Now it's clean up on all aisles.


More and more people are being red pilled, as the trolls under the bridge look prescient.

We're still a long way from enforcing truth.