I, [name] do solemnly swear...

[Hopyard]

check out Oath Keepers Oath Keepers » Oath Keepers – Guardians of the Republic

This come up frequently. There is only one oath anyone should be taking. It is the one you take when inducted, when
starting your Federal Employment, when Naturalized. Secondary oaths such as Oath Keepers' oaths are a danger to our
democracy.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[RoadKill]

I don't see the problem with Oath Keepers. Seems to me they refer to "The Oath" and define what it means to defend and obey the Constitution--things that it implies you will not do like confiscate arms, search without a warrant, detain without a official arrest warrant, etc. Their "oath" is just a reinforcement of the principles, not a new oath.

[lchamp]

I swore that oath when I enlisted and again when I received my commission in the USAF. That oath does not expire.

[Hopyard]

I don't see the problem with Oath Keepers. Seems to me they refer to "The Oath" and define what it means to defend and obey the Constitution--things that it implies you will not do like confiscate arms, search without a warrant, detain without a official arrest warrant, etc. Their "oath" is just a reinforcement of the principles, not a new oath.

This has been discussed on this forum many times. The core problem with secondary oaths is that they leave open
the option of disobeying lawful orders out of a mistaken belief that the soldier's individual judgment is superior to that of his
superior officers.

You can bet, that particularly with enlisted ranks and lower level officers, orders involving issues
of constitutionality have been thoroughly examined by much higher ranking officers, by Judge Advocates, by the civilian
lawyers in charge of the DOD, by the Justice Dept. Orders don't happen in a vacuum.

Therefore, anyone presuming that a particular order is unconstitutional is substituting their personal judgment for that
of a finely honed legal system and military system for vetting such.

One oath is all you need.

[RKflorida]

This has been discussed on this forum many times. The core problem with secondary oaths is that they leave open
the option of disobeying lawful orders out of a mistaken belief that the soldier's individual judgment is superior to that of his
superior officers.

You can bet, that particularly with enlisted ranks and lower level officers, orders involving issues
of constitutionality have been thoroughly examined by much higher ranking officers, by Judge Advocates, by the civilian
lawyers in charge of the DOD, by the Justice Dept. Orders don't happen in a vacuum.

Therefore, anyone presuming that a particular order is unconstitutional is substituting their personal judgment for that
of a finely honed legal system and military system for vetting such.

One oath is all you need.

Ever since the Calley trial, you had damn well better use your judgement about orders. The statement you make about betting on high ranking officers, JAG, etc., is correct but for a different reason, you ARE betting, if you blindly trust you are gambling with your own freedom/life/career. If a young person does not have the knowledge or skills to understand the implications of an order, they have no choice but to trust in the chain of command. This of course, only applies to constitutional issues. If the Chief says to clean the head, do it or suffer. If however, you are told to be a part of a squad that is going to take weapons from citizens, you had damn well better use your judgement.

[OldVet]

I swore that oath when I enlisted and again when I received my commission in the USAF. That oath does not expire.

So for the sake of argument, then why did I have to keep "renewing" it everytime I re-enlisted? Wasn't the first one good enough?

[marinevet1994]

I will continue to uphold that oath up to and including the day I leave this existence!!

[pscipio03]

So for the sake of argument, then why did I have to keep "renewing" it everytime I re-enlisted? Wasn't the first one good enough?

Cuz simply slapping you on the back and saying you still ain't gonna get rich Joe isn't as fun.
Does bring up the question why I only said it once as an officer, but a couple times as an EM...

[RKflorida]

So for the sake of argument, then why did I have to keep "renewing" it everytime I re-enlisted? Wasn't the first one good enough?

I've wondered the same thing. The only thing that makes sense is that the government is not as honorable as the citizens that take the oath. I, and my fellows, certainly didn't need to reaffirm the oath, but they insist. Also, it makes for good ceremony and picture ops. A picture of you with your hand in the air taking an oath is good for re-enlistment photos for the troops to see. Besides, it's too hard to get a pony.

[sigs]

Cuz simply slapping you on the back and saying you still ain't gonna get rich Joe isn't as fun.
Does bring up the question why I only said it once as an officer, but a couple times as an EM...

I think the short answer without getting technical is because you were sworn to a commission until you resigned said commission.

[archer51]

I don't remember seeing an expiration date when I took mine.

[pscipio03]

I think the short answer without getting technical is because you were sworn to a commission until you resigned said commission.

Yeah, I know, just messing around. Same reason we never had to re-up.

[Sig35seven]

Reciting words is one thing but living by those words is another. As the saying goes...If you talk the talk then you need to walk the walk. What Amazes me is the hypocrisy of people who want to defend certain parts of the constitution but then turn around and conveniently want to eliminate others rights without realizing what they are doing. A good example would be those who took the 'oath' but then like the idea of profiling or get rid of certain religions.

[OldVet]

I don't see profiling as having anything to do with the oath or the Constituion, but that's a debate best left to other forums, other threads.

[Hopyard]

Ever since the Calley trial, you had damn well better use your judgement about orders. The statement you make about betting on high ranking officers, JAG, etc., is correct but for a different reason, you ARE betting, if you blindly trust you are gambling with your own freedom/life/career. If a young person does not have the knowledge or skills to understand the implications of an order, they have no choice but to trust in the chain of command. This of course, only applies to constitutional issues. If the Chief says to clean the head, do it or suffer. If however, you are told to be a part of a squad that is going to take weapons from citizens, you had damn well better use your judgement.

I guess we have a different view of Calley and his choices. And we have a different view of what you wrote in your
last sentence. The problem being that at that particular level you are darned if you do and darned if you don't; you lack
the information needed to judge if the order is lawful under the particular circumstances.

Here, I'll give you a real world example. when Jose Padilla a US Citizen locked up without trial and without access to lawyers
was held in the Navy Brig, after being kidnapped (I like that word for what happened) right out of a Federal Courtroom,
should the Navy enlisted man jailer have made a decision on whether or not holding him was constitutional? Think before you answer. On the one hand it appears to be an unlawful order, and on the other hand it has never been fully settled even by The Supremes because all the fudge on the issue played out in a slow-mo political and legal wrangle that allowed the big boys to slip the noose. In short, had you decided that holding him was unconstitutional and not followed your order, what do you think would have happened to you?

Constitutional issues are big deals best left to those with the extensive knowledge and the full legal authority to hammer them out. So yes, if your squad leader orders you to rob the Stop and Rob, most folks can be expected to figure out that is an illegal
order. When it comes to constitutional stuff, the decisions are way way way above even the level of the typical Colonel.