• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Violating ones oath to the constitution.

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Is there actually any criminal ramifications or civil, towards a person that clearly violates their " oath to support the constitution"?

How sacred is the oath? What are the penalties thereof for any violation thereof said oath?

If we can't bind public officials to their constitutional oath, then what cause of action, do we as citizens possess?

Jefferson opined, we must bind our public officials by the Constitution.. however, while the constitution is the law of the land, what role does taken of said oath play in our society or the breaking of said oath.

Thoughts and opinions greatly appreciated.

Regards
CCJ
 

The Trickster

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
216
Location
Arizona
I've noticed that many of these so-called oath violators don't believe that they are violating anything or anyone, and that they are righteous and justified in their actions. Others simply just do not care as they see their oaths as nothing but words that are recited as traditional pretense toward an archaic and antiquated document. Then there are the selective oath violators, who take only certain rights seriously but will do anything within their power to violate the rights with which they disagree.

What do you think?
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
I've noticed that many of these so-called oath violators don't believe that they are violating anything or anyone, and that they are righteous and justified in their actions. Others simply just do not care as they see their oaths as nothing but words that are recited as traditional pretense toward an archaic and antiquated document. Then there are the selective oath violators, who take only certain rights seriously but will do anything within their power to violate the rights with which they disagree.

What do you think?

Thank you for your reply.. I totally concur with your observation, however what cause of action do we, as citizens possess to bring said violators to justice.? I am familiar with USC title 42 sections 241 and 242, and also 42 section 1983, however I do not see how those laws under said titles apply.

Surely one that violates, a persons rights, are guilt of violating their oath, however, what if they simply support a law/statute that violates their oath?
Where then is our cause of action?..

trickester, based on your terms " archaic and antiquated", may I assume that you're not an " originalist"?

In my humble opinion, the document was a quasi-constitution until after 1920 aka, the 19th A was ratified, until said time, WE , the people, was bogus.
How could one consent to be governed, if one had no say on their governors? Today that archaic, antiquated document is the same for everyone, and the text actually has true meaning..

My .02

Looking forward to your reply.

Regards
CCJ
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
I've noticed that many of these so-called oath violators don't believe that they are violating anything or anyone, and that they are righteous and justified in their actions. Others simply just do not care as they see their oaths as nothing but words that are recited as traditional pretense toward an archaic and antiquated document. Then there are the selective oath violators, who take only certain rights seriously but will do anything within their power to violate the rights with which they disagree.

What do you think?

--snipped--
trickester, based on your terms " archaic and antiquated", may I assume that you're not an " originalist"?
As I read what Trickster said it would seem "archaic and antiquated" belong to the thinking of the oath violators.
 

Ken56

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
368
Location
Dandridge, TN
Why would lawmakers include anything in a law that penalizes themselves? The only avenue I see is recall action just like what happened in Colorado. The problem as I see it is most of us are not motivated enough to take on such an undertaking and the time and effort involved to do it. Gun owner organizations are the resource we have at hand to band together the numbers needed to pull off a recall....if we all participate.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,703
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
The Code Federal Regulations at Title 5, Section 2635.101(a) states that “Public service is a public trust.”

In Buffum v. Peter Barceloux Co. United States Supreme Court 289 U.S. 227, 237 stated that:

“The standard of duty is no different whether the trust to be enforced is actual or constructive.* * * The implication of a trust is the implication of every duty proper to a trust. * * * Whoever is a fiduciary or in conscience chargeable as a fiduciary is expected to live up to them.”
 
Last edited:

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
The Code Federal Regulations at Title 5, Section 2635.101(a) states that “Public service is a public trust.”

In Buffum v. Peter Barceloux Co. United States Supreme Court 289 U.S. 227, 237 stated that:

“The standard of duty is no different whether the trust to be enforced is actual or constructive.* * * The implication of a trust is the implication of every duty proper to a trust. * * * Whoever is a fiduciary or in conscience chargeable as a fiduciary is expected to live up to them.”

Nice find! It sums up the bulk of the intent behind the UCMJ with respect to the oaths of both officers and enlisted.

If members of the military, as well as law enforcement officers are held to high standards, why in God's good name are we finding it so difficult to hold civil officers to the same high standards?

I think most of them feel shielded because they assume they're in control, rather than view themselves as public servants. I also think Donald Trump's firing of James Comey surprised a lot of people who thought their positions were intact and who thought they could do whatever they felt like, within reason.

I sure wish someone like Trump had been in charge when people like Clinton and Holder/Lynch were in office.
 

The Trickster

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
216
Location
Arizona
Thank you for your reply.. I totally concur with your observation, however what cause of action do we, as citizens possess to bring said violators to justice.? I am familiar with USC title 42 sections 241 and 242, and also 42 section 1983, however I do not see how those laws under said titles apply.

Surely one that violates, a persons rights, are guilt of violating their oath, however, what if they simply support a law/statute that violates their oath?
Where then is our cause of action?..

trickester, based on your terms " archaic and antiquated", may I assume that you're not an " originalist"?

In my humble opinion, the document was a quasi-constitution until after 1920 aka, the 19th A was ratified, until said time, WE , the people, was bogus.
How could one consent to be governed, if one had no say on their governors? Today that archaic, antiquated document is the same for everyone, and the text actually has true meaning..

My .02

Looking forward to your reply.

Regards
CCJ

The terms "archaic" and "antiquated" were used to illustrate the thoughts of certain violators; I myself do not believe that they are accurate descriptions of our Constitution.

Concerning justice against the violators, lawsuits seem to be the most frequently used remedy, other than apathy, acceptance, or the filing of usually ineffective complaints. Unfortunately, even when a victim wins a lawsuit against an oath/rights violator, the victory is truly limited as the taxpayers always seem to end up footing the bill to pay for the violator's misdeeds. I believe the perfect solution to this problem is to end the madness and hold people individually liable for such misconduct. When an oath/rights violator is found to be guilty, (s)he should recompense the victim(s). Liens, garnishments, etc. - whatever it takes. The more people have to lose, the easier they are to control and therefore behave accordingly.
 
Last edited:

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
The terms "archaic" and "antiquated" were used to illustrate the thoughts of certain violators; I myself do not believe that they are accurate descriptions of our Constitution.

Concerning justice against the violators, lawsuits seem to be the most frequently used remedy, other than apathy, acceptance, or the filing of usually ineffective complaints. Unfortunately, even when a victim wins a lawsuit against an oath/rights violator, the victory is truly limited as the taxpayers always seem to end up footing the bill to pay for the violator's misdeeds. I believe the perfect solution to this problem is to end the madness and hold people individually liable for such misconduct. When an oath/rights violator is found to be guilty, (s)he should recompense the victim(s). Liens, garnishments, etc. - whatever it takes. The more people have to lose, the easier they are to control and therefore behave accordingly.

Thank you Sir and I concur completely!
Regards
CCJ
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
At times it seems that binding with rope and a boat anchor would be a better idea.

Indeed, and I concur, however, said binding, may in fact be a violation of the 8th Amendment.. But on the other hand, the 8th only pertains to Government.. I say, BIND ON, BIND ON !..

Be well Phoenix David!

CCJ
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,276
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Is there actually any criminal ramifications or civil, towards a person that clearly violates their " oath to support the constitution"?

How sacred is the oath? What are the penalties thereof for any violation thereof said oath?

If we can't bind public officials to their constitutional oath
, then what cause of action, do we as citizens possess?

Jefferson opined, we must bind our public officials by the Constitution.. however, while the constitution is the law of the land, what role does taken of said oath play in our society or the breaking of said oath.

Thoughts and opinions greatly appreciated.

Regards
CCJ

Oh, my. Thanks for asking. Several angles present themselves. Bear with me for a second.

What if the constitution itself were based on a lie? No, really. I mean it. If the constitution were based on a lie, we could not bind an honest man--say a cop--to it, could we? How could you bind an honest man, who perhaps did not see the lie, to a constitution?

And, of course, we would be fools to expect a dishonest man to adhere, wouldn't we?

Of course, you knew this was coming: the constitution is based on a lie. Oh, you reject that comment? Look closer my fellow man

"We the People of the united States..."

There it is. Right in the first sentence.

Which people? Lets have a look.

In 1789, when the constitution was "ratified", women could not vote. Women did not get the vote until, what?, 1929? So, right off the bat we can say without any stretch whatsoever that nearly half the people subject to this new "law of the land" had no say in it.

So, lets be generous and say that slightly over half the population were men.

But, wait! There's more!

At ratification, every state required that a voter hold property. Uh-oh. Every man who did not own property could not vote. Hmmmmm. So, all the male tenants who rented rooms or homes in the cities, and all the male tenant farmers, and all the 21-year olds who had not amassed enough money yet to buy property--had no say in whether the constitution was adopted. Heck, they didn't even have a say in the legislators who voted for who would sit on the state ratification committees, much less vote directly for the ratification committee members.

But, wait! There's more. Not that there needs to be. By eliminating women and property-less men, we already moved the marker below 50% of the population who would be subject to this document called the constitution having a say in whether it was adopted.

Now, this next point is a little more subtle. I'm just going to throw it out there: they knew slaves were people. No, really. Read. Read a lot. There are plenty of explanations of how slaves were less than whites. But, hidden in those numerous rationalizations is the massively implied premise that blacks were people.

Well, it is their own words. Slaves were only 3/5 of a person. Ha!! Great! I'll take that argument!! Three-fifths is 60 effing percent, scum bag! By their own effing words, sixty percent of the slave people ruled by the then-new constitution had no say in the constitution.

Now, of course, sixty percent of the slave population is not sixty percent of the whole population. But, it doesn't need to be.

So, lets have a look at where we are with the math. Women--lets generously say ever so slightly less than half the population. Property-less men--oh, now we've got to be at half the population. Slaves--people by their own admission--no vote for any of them. No, no. Not just the sixty percent, none, not one.

So, less than half the population had no say in the constitution. No, I didn't say less that half voted for it. I said less than half had no say whatsoever.

That doesn't even pass muster for a pure democracy, much less a democratic republic.

And, yet, right there in the pre-amble are those words, "We the People..."

Which people?

If the whole thing proceeds from a lie, how can we bind even an honest man to it?
 
Last edited:

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Oh, my. Thanks for asking. Several angles present themselves. Bear with me for a second.

What if the constitution itself were based on a lie? No, really. I mean it. If the constitution were based on a lie, we could not bind an honest man--say a cop--to it, could we? How could you bind an honest man, who perhaps did not see the lie, to a constitution?

And, of course, we would be fools to expect a dishonest man to adhere, wouldn't we?

Of course, you knew this was coming: the constitution is based on a lie. Oh, you reject that comment? Look closer my fellow man

"We the People of the united States..."

There it is. Right in the first sentence.

Which people? Lets have a look.

In 1789, when the constitution was "ratified", women could not vote. Women did not get the vote until, what?, 1929? So, right off the bat we can say without any stretch whatsoever that nearly half the people subject to this new "law of the land" had no say in it.

So, lets be generous and say that slightly over half the population were men.

But, wait! There's more!

At ratification, every state required that a voter hold property. Uh-oh. Every man who did not own property could not vote. Hmmmmm. So, all the male tenants who rented rooms or homes in the cities, and all the male tenant farmers, and all the 21-year olds who had not amassed enough money yet to buy property--had no say in whether the constitution was adopted. Heck, they didn't even have a say in the legislators who voted for who would sit on the state ratification committees, much less vote directly for the ratification committee members.

But, wait! There's more. Not that there needs to be. By eliminating women and property-less men, we already moved the marker below 50% of the population who would be subject to this document called the constitution having a say in whether it was adopted.

Now, this next point is a little more subtle. I'm just going to throw it out there: they knew slaves were people. No, really. Read. Read a lot. There are plenty of explanations of how slaves were less than whites. But, hidden in those numerous rationalizations is the massively implied premise that blacks were people.

Well, it is their own words. Slaves were only 3/5 of a person. Ha!! Great! I'll take that argument!! Three-fifths is 60 effing percent, scum bag! By their own effing words, sixty percent of the slave people ruled by the then-new constitution had no say in the constitution.

Now, of course, sixty percent of the slave population is not sixty percent of the whole population. But, it doesn't need to be.

So, lets have a look at where we are with the math. Women--lets generously say ever so slightly less than half the population. Property-less men--oh, now we've got to be at half the population. Slaves--people by their own admission--no vote for any of them. No, no. Not just the sixty percent, none, not one.

So, less than half the population had no say in the constitution. No, I didn't say less that half voted for it. I said less than half had no say whatsoever.

That doesn't even pass muster for a pure democracy, much less a democratic republic.

And, yet, right there in the pre-amble are those words, "We the People..."

Which people?

If the whole thing proceeds from a lie, how can we bind even an honest man to it?

Citizen
My fellow Patriot, you are stealing my sentiments, please read over some of my recent post.. I have taken many iniquitous post, against what I expound on the document.. In a nut shell, the Constitution, was null and void until 1920, until and when woman were aloud to have a say, over who were to be their governors..

The true meaning of "We, the people, is more alive today in the 21st century, when the original document was incorporated in 1787, the population of the United States was a mere, 4 million people give or take some, today we have a population close to 322 million people, give or take a few..

I propose that the document of 1787, was null and void and was repugnant to Natural law.. Not until the 13th and 14th amendments were ratified, did the document begin to support laws for almost everyone, obviously in 1920, with the ratifying of the 19th amendment, our document, The United States Constitution, came to not only be law for everyone but also started to fall into line with our Creator's Natural laws, for everyone..

I think Spooners words, were in fact true, when he expounded them in 1854. To wit, ' But whether the constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain--- that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."..

In my humble opinion, I believe Mr.Spooner like myself, would be proud of our new post 19th amendment Constitution..

Now, if we can only find some honorable folks too up hold their oath thereof, this great 21st century constitutional country, would indeed be the nation that our limited Founders/Fathers would be proud thereof. Thank God, their posterity, had the insight to make this nation great. Today, The Supreme Law of the land, applies to everyone. And follows the dictates of our Creator.

Please be advised, any and all spelling or grammar mistakes are the property of my old age.

My .02

Citizens, always a pleasure Sir!
Regards
CCJ
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
There are times when I think that the idea Robert Heinlein proposed in his book "Starship Troopers" has merit. Only those who have served in the military are "full" citizens and only they have the right to vote.

Let me guess, you are employed as a " military recruiter".. ?..

I prefer his work, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, but than again, I am a Libertarian..

Regards
CCJ
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,703
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
As I have said many times, what are the three most important things in law? Definition, definition, definition.....

The Constitution is not a lie. And it is not perfect. The constitution was written for the times and contained compromises. "We the people" was defined; generally, men who owned property. But, they knew men are mere mortals, imperfect in many ways. So, those men that created that compromised contract provided a method to make changes. The authority to amend the Constitution is derived from Article V of the Constitution.

Like you guys I wish for a lot and my views change from time to time, but I believe that the "We the people" should be defined as land owners from the standpoint of voting. 99% of every issue on a ballot is in one way, shape or form is for taxing the land owners.

"The Congress shall have Power To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;"

Have you ever read the "Law of Nations?" I have and I have a complete copy. If you read it I believe you would understand the constitution a lot better.

But, the Constitution is not a lie as imperfect as it is.
 

dmatting

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
445
Location
Durham, NC
Oh, my. Thanks for asking. Several angles present themselves. Bear with me for a second.

What if the constitution itself were based on a lie? No, really. I mean it. If the constitution were based on a lie, we could not bind an honest man--say a cop--to it, could we? How could you bind an honest man, who perhaps did not see the lie, to a constitution?

And, of course, we would be fools to expect a dishonest man to adhere, wouldn't we?

Of course, you knew this was coming: the constitution is based on a lie. Oh, you reject that comment? Look closer my fellow man

"We the People of the united States..."

There it is. Right in the first sentence.

Which people? Lets have a look.

In 1789, when the constitution was "ratified", women could not vote. Women did not get the vote until, what?, 1929? So, right off the bat we can say without any stretch whatsoever that nearly half the people subject to this new "law of the land" had no say in it.

So, lets be generous and say that slightly over half the population were men.

But, wait! There's more!

At ratification, every state required that a voter hold property. Uh-oh. Every man who did not own property could not vote. Hmmmmm. So, all the male tenants who rented rooms or homes in the cities, and all the male tenant farmers, and all the 21-year olds who had not amassed enough money yet to buy property--had no say in whether the constitution was adopted. Heck, they didn't even have a say in the legislators who voted for who would sit on the state ratification committees, much less vote directly for the ratification committee members.

But, wait! There's more. Not that there needs to be. By eliminating women and property-less men, we already moved the marker below 50% of the population who would be subject to this document called the constitution having a say in whether it was adopted.

Now, this next point is a little more subtle. I'm just going to throw it out there: they knew slaves were people. No, really. Read. Read a lot. There are plenty of explanations of how slaves were less than whites. But, hidden in those numerous rationalizations is the massively implied premise that blacks were people.

Well, it is their own words. Slaves were only 3/5 of a person. Ha!! Great! I'll take that argument!! Three-fifths is 60 effing percent, scum bag! By their own effing words, sixty percent of the slave people ruled by the then-new constitution had no say in the constitution.

Now, of course, sixty percent of the slave population is not sixty percent of the whole population. But, it doesn't need to be.

So, lets have a look at where we are with the math. Women--lets generously say ever so slightly less than half the population. Property-less men--oh, now we've got to be at half the population. Slaves--people by their own admission--no vote for any of them. No, no. Not just the sixty percent, none, not one.

So, less than half the population had no say in the constitution. No, I didn't say less that half voted for it. I said less than half had no say whatsoever.

That doesn't even pass muster for a pure democracy, much less a democratic republic.

And, yet, right there in the pre-amble are those words, "We the People..."

Which people?

If the whole thing proceeds from a lie, how can we bind even an honest man to it?

You would only be able to call it a lie if you superimpose 21st century cultural mores and norms onto an 18th century people. During those times, the land owning patriarch of the family represented the entire family through the vote that he cast - very much like the representative republic that they voted for! If you think that the wife did not have the ear of her husband and he did not take her input seriously, then I would suggest that you would be, again, superimposing your views onto an 18th century people.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,703
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
You would only be able to call it a lie if you superimpose 21st century cultural mores and norms onto an 18th century people. During those times, the land owning patriarch of the family represented the entire family through the vote that he cast - very much like the representative republic that they voted for! If you think that the wife did not have the ear of her husband and he did not take her input seriously, then I would suggest that you would be, again, superimposing your views onto an 18th century people.
The price to enter the boudoir could be high.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Which people? Lets have a look...

Ok, let's:

In 1789, when the constitution was "ratified", women could not vote...

If I'm not mistaken, you're already off-target. Our Founding Fathers did not equate the limited population of those who could vote with the broader population of "We the People." Indeed, there are a number of references where they considered "We the People" to be every last man, woman, and child. To see this, we need look no further than precisely those comments made in response to our Second Amendment and to whom they believed it applied. Admittedly, however, our government did not extend that to slaves until long after the Civil War, when they were no longer slaves.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
Ok, let's:



If I'm not mistaken, you're already off-target. Our Founding Fathers did not equate the limited population of those who could vote with the broader population of "We the People." Indeed, there are a number of references where they considered "We the People" to be every last man, woman, and child. To see this, we need look no further than precisely those comments made in response to our Second Amendment and to whom they believed it applied. Admittedly, however, our government did not extend that to slaves until long after the Civil War, when they were no longer slaves.

And woman had no say in government until after 1920, some 133 years after the Constitution was ratified. Therefore, in my opinion said document before 1920 was a " nullity". We, the people, was in fact a lie. Currently the document means what the framers had envisioned it too mean. Hence another issue that gives credibility too a living, breathing Constitution. The founders for all their prejudices, were surely geniuses and saw the document evolving with time and the dictates of society.

My .02
Regards
CCJ
 
Top