"Constitution OF the United States"
That is the corporate one.
The original is "Constitution FOR the United States"
I think you are wrong, they are indeed swearing to the corp (unknowingly).
Edit:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
TITLE & PREAMBLE: TITLE – The Constitution is “for”, not “of”; the word “of” expresses “possession”; in this case, a possession of the United States; therefore, its creation, to do with as it pleases; it denotes ownership. Whereas the word “for” denotes something “intended for” someone else; in this case, a contract of the People, intended for the United States.
There is an important difference to understand when reading the Officers' Oath of Enlistment compared to the Oath of Office.
Both officers and enlisted service members swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, but in the Oath of Enlistment, service members swear they will “obey the orders of the president of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over [them], according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.”
Officers do not include this in their Oath of Office.
Instead, they swear to support and defend the constitution and “well and faithfully discharge the duties of their office.”
Why are the two oaths different? This concept traces back to the intentions of the Founding Fathers who created our governing system with a separation of powers and series of checks and balances between the three branches. This ensures no single branch or person gains too much power and becomes corrupted. By swearing allegiance to a set of ideals and laws, our military is not bound by the orders of a single person, but are dedicated to the defense of the people and their way of life.
With either oath, your loyalty is to the Constitution first. An unlawful order is one that violates the Constitution.
It is taken by all federal employees, and this specific wording was established in 1966. This was the swearing in of national guard units as US marshals.
Again, this is NOT a military oath, and has nothing to do with chain of command. The wording used is 100% in compliance with the code established in 1966. Every federal employee takes this exact same oath.
I have looked further into this and have to concede that you are correct in this regard.
In my research, I did come across some interesting facts with regards to duties, jurisdictions, and interoperability. But that will be a subject for another post.
Thank you, Anon, for standing up for truth in this matter.
I am considering it. But there is a lot of good information here, the process of research and peer review, how to properly fact check,, how to concede a point, where to go for research, a better awareness of what's in play, and even some good tidbits from history. Im reluctant to remove the post for these reasons.
I am considering it. But there is a lot of good information here, the process of research and peer review, how to properly fact check,, how to concede a point, where to go for research, a enter awareness of what's in play, and even some good tidbit from history. Im reluctant to remove the post for these reasons.
I am considering it. But there is a lot of good information here, the process of research and peer review, how to properly fact check,, how to concede a point, where to go for research, a enter awareness of what's in play, and even some good tidbit from history. Im reluctant to remove the post for these reasons.
Question. Have you researched any modifications of the Marshalls Oath since its formation? I enjoy history quite a bit and would be interested in any of your findings as there have been several evolutions of the US Marshall service throughout the years.
Educate yourself about the subject and then you'll be in a position to speak on the subject.
Calling something or someone stupid is a poor way to involve yourself in a conversation. Its referred to as an ad hominum fallacy in serious discussions and debates. If you are unwilling or unable to contribute to the conversation in a meaningful way, either sit back and listen and learn or go create some Pepe memes in the playroom.
Not sure why you are being downvoted. This video is from at least a few days ago (I saw it 2 days ago, personally) and it shows them being sworn in as deputies until Jan 24th.
....and not of the President or any government personnel.
This is the temporary deputization of the marshall's until their orders in DC are over.
Obviously. But the same object of the Oath applies.
Listen to what's missing...
Winner, winner, chicken dinner!
This seems to infer that they will be in DC until February 16th. At least active until then, and could be extended.
https://imgur.com/a/QTAaZ1F#GBHYr4A
Done in 30?
https://qagg.news/?q=remember+your+oath
Can someone explain the differences here and why it's relevant?
Martial law.
"Constitution OF the United States" That is the corporate one.
The original is "Constitution FOR the United States"
I think you are wrong, they are indeed swearing to the corp (unknowingly).
Edit:
https://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/constitution.pdf
https://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/sites/default/files/chapter2.pdf
Also this: http://www.paulstramer.net/2020/04/the-constitution-for-united-states-of.html
** https://history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html **
Its not a matter of for/of.... its a matter of leaving out the oath to the President.
Read the link in its entirety. The relevant oaths are the first and last presented on the page.
Did anyone else sing that in their head? My favorite Schoolhouse rock song. lol
I totally did! LOL #4thgradehistory
There is an important difference to understand when reading the Officers' Oath of Enlistment compared to the Oath of Office.
Both officers and enlisted service members swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, but in the Oath of Enlistment, service members swear they will “obey the orders of the president of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over [them], according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.”
Officers do not include this in their Oath of Office.
Instead, they swear to support and defend the constitution and “well and faithfully discharge the duties of their office.”
Why are the two oaths different? This concept traces back to the intentions of the Founding Fathers who created our governing system with a separation of powers and series of checks and balances between the three branches. This ensures no single branch or person gains too much power and becomes corrupted. By swearing allegiance to a set of ideals and laws, our military is not bound by the orders of a single person, but are dedicated to the defense of the people and their way of life.
With either oath, your loyalty is to the Constitution first. An unlawful order is one that violates the Constitution.
A full history of the oaths for both Officers and Enlisted can be found here.
https://history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html
This is not a military oath guys. Please, enough of us are hurting already that we don't need these kinds of false rumors started.
This is the standard oath defined in 5 USC 3331 for all government employees
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title5/html/USCODE-2011-title5-partIII-subpartB-chap33-subchapII-sec3331.htm
It is taken by all federal employees, and this specific wording was established in 1966. This was the swearing in of national guard units as US marshals.
Again, this is NOT a military oath, and has nothing to do with chain of command. The wording used is 100% in compliance with the code established in 1966. Every federal employee takes this exact same oath.
Lol. Yes, let's just listen to what our goverment has to say about it, shall we? Dude, that's how we all got screwed in the first place.
Here is a source from the Military itself. The first and last entries are the relevant oaths.
https://history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html
Again. This was an oath for US marshal. Not a military oath. The oath they read is exactly the oath mandated by 5 USC 3331.
The military oaths have nothing to do with this. This wording is standard since 1966. Please see here:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title5/html/USCODE-2011-title5-partIII-subpartB-chap33-subchapII-sec3331.htm
I have looked further into this and have to concede that you are correct in this regard.
In my research, I did come across some interesting facts with regards to duties, jurisdictions, and interoperability. But that will be a subject for another post.
Thank you, Anon, for standing up for truth in this matter.
I am considering it. But there is a lot of good information here, the process of research and peer review, how to properly fact check,, how to concede a point, where to go for research, a better awareness of what's in play, and even some good tidbits from history. Im reluctant to remove the post for these reasons.
A title edit ability would be helpful here.
I am considering it. But there is a lot of good information here, the process of research and peer review, how to properly fact check,, how to concede a point, where to go for research, a enter awareness of what's in play, and even some good tidbit from history. Im reluctant to remove the post for these reasons.
I am considering it. But there is a lot of good information here, the process of research and peer review, how to properly fact check,, how to concede a point, where to go for research, a enter awareness of what's in play, and even some good tidbit from history. Im reluctant to remove the post for these reasons.
A title edit ability would be helpful here.
Question. Have you researched any modifications of the Marshalls Oath since its formation? I enjoy history quite a bit and would be interested in any of your findings as there have been several evolutions of the US Marshall service throughout the years.
https://www.usmarshals.gov/history/broad_range.htm
https://www.usmarshals.gov/duties/factsheets/index.html
https://history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html
First and last entries on the page are the relevant oaths.
This USA INC stuff is so stupid.
Please stop.
.... says the "former Texas Liberal"
Educate yourself about the subject and then you'll be in a position to speak on the subject.
Calling something or someone stupid is a poor way to involve yourself in a conversation. Its referred to as an ad hominum fallacy in serious discussions and debates. If you are unwilling or unable to contribute to the conversation in a meaningful way, either sit back and listen and learn or go create some Pepe memes in the playroom.
That’s old. Unless u have the dates on these. Pretty sure that’s old.
If you actually listened to the clip, you can clearly hear that the Oath is sworn thru Jan 24, 2021.
Thanks for playing.
Had no clue
Nah that’s them being sworn in and Jan 24 2021 is when they’re duty is done. I believe.
Not sure why you are being downvoted. This video is from at least a few days ago (I saw it 2 days ago, personally) and it shows them being sworn in as deputies until Jan 24th.
you guys are going all in on this usa is a corporation sovcit crap huh gold fringe flag, ucc, right to travel, "berth" certificates
man i hope you all upload your traffic stop videos to jewtube
No effort to educate yourself. Ignorant hostility - a sure sign of a feeble mind.