Sunday, May 12, 2013

Why Didn't the Founders Include the Word President in the Officers Oath?!

wondering why the Founders did NOT include the word PRESIDENT in the OFFICERS OATH?!!
Officers Oath

I, [name], do
solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I
take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose
of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of
the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

I am certain that there is / was a reason!! - So-I do not totally agree w/ Gen Boykin - on troop engagement if the officer (s) know that the US or her citizens are in danger!!

My comment to a reply to my first comment at Gateway--from Red Beard who mentioned the word Commander in Chief--

My reply to the reply:

the enlisted oath DOES include the word President--

Oath of Enlistment

I, (NAME), do
solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and
that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and
the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations
and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

So-again-why did the Founders NOT include the word President in the OFFICER'S Oath?!!
OK- My thought-they did not trust any 'head of state'--

AND THIS--United States Military Academy -WEST POINT - was established--early on -after the FOUNDING-- to train military OFFICERS...NOT ENLISTED!!and -
 guess what--
one of the first structures was the Cadet Chapel  (Christian)!! Now it is the Lutheran Chapel--the "new" Cadet Chapel (Christian) is huge and is shaped like a cross - when viewed from an aerial position!!- 


WomanHonorThyself said...

hey Carol: HAPPY MOM'S DAY TO THE LOVELY LADIES!!!...XOXOXO Have a great weekend to all the gentlemen..heh* :)

Mustang said...

One notable difference between the officer and enlisted oaths is that the oath taken by officers does not include any provision to obey orders; while enlisted personnel are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey lawful orders. An enlisted member who refuses to obey an order that he or she believes is illegal or unlawful may be prosecuted for that violation when it is established by competent authority that the order was in fact lawful. The reasons for this are obvious.

Commissioned officers in the military services of the United States are bound by oath to the US Constitution; they are expected to disobey any order that violates any constitutional provision. However, the actual commission (promotion warrant) does in fact require obedience to the President of the United States, as follows: “And I do strictly charge and require those Officers and other personnel of lesser rank to render such obedience as is due an officer of this grade and position. And this Officer is to observe and follow such orders and directives, from time to time, as may be given by me, or the future President of the United States of America, or other Superior Officers acting in accordance with the laws of the United States of America.”

christian soldier said...

WHT - thank you my Patriot friend!!

M- Thank you -
RE: the commission--promotion warrant-
When was the addition to original oath added?

Mustang said...

The Constitution was ratified on 13 September 1788, and the new Constitutional government began on 4 March 1789. Federal and state officials are required by Article VI, clause III to bind themselves by oath or affirmation to the United States Constitution. The initial oath was simple: “I ___ do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”

The Judiciary Act of 1789 prescribed additional oaths taken by federal judges.

The oath became more complex in April 1861 due to uncertain and shifting loyalties between the federal and state governments. President Lincoln ordered an expanded oath of office, so one was hastily penned. In December 1861, Congress modified the oath further to include an “ironclad test oath,” its purpose being to guard against northern traitors harboring southern sympathies. IMO, this was silly. If a man is going to break his oath, adding “ironclad loyalty” provisions isn’t going to change that.

As far as I know the oath of office for commissioned officers of the uniformed services has been in effect (as you have it typed above) since December 1861. I do not know how long the actual commissioning documents have been thus worded.

christian soldier said...

M- I have been doing some study on Lincoln and have found that he was 'shaky' when it came to Constitutional percepts --

Robert E. Lee- West Point - top of his class --was not--shaky-

Thank you - Mustang- for the overview as to date and time-line--

Leticia said...

Mustang, I don't think I have anything to add. Very well said and spoken.