I am a USAF Civil Engineer Staff Sergent, I am proud to stand up and re-affirm my oath to the United States of America and to it's Constitution.
I have protected our great country and it's Constitution from foreign enemies and am prepared to do the same against domestic threats. I strive daily to speak to people in the Armed Forces about their oath and what it means, I work to educate people on the current travesties being wrought upon our Constitution.
I would like to sincerely thank Oath-Keepers for bringing this message to the public.
It is important for the public to be reassured that the Military both present and past as well as law enforcement officers will stand by their oath and protect them.
Engineers, Kicks A**
Posts
3 comments:
Thank you for your reassuring words, sir. My heart quakes when I see what they are trying to do. And I feel calm when I see men like you standing up for what is right. I am one grateful American mother of 6.
The rock upon which Oathkeepers will split is on who shall interpret the Constitution. If I understand the views of Stewart Rhodes correctly, he does not believe that the Supreme Court should interpret the Constitution. However, I have some questions about that line of reasoning as follows:
To show that interpretation is necessary, consider the following questions.
1. In the first amendment below, what is "an unreasonable search" ? Are there reasonable searches? Someone has to decide.
2. In amendment V below, what is "due process of law."? Is that clearly defined? Someone has to decide what it is.
3. In amendment VI, does it require that an arrested person be informed of his right to an attorney? Someone has to decide this question and the Supreme Court decided some years ago that an arrested person must be informed of his right to an attorney. Would it be wise to allow sheriffs to decide this question?
4. In amendment VI, what is a speedy Trial? Is it six months or 2 years? Someone has to decide if there is a difference of opinion.
It is clear that even the amendments require interpretation.
.........................................................................................................
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII
Oathkeepers,
I have noticed some posts here that seem to hint at violence against the government. I think that is a very unwise thing to allow. It is legal but not wise. You may encourage some new Timothy McVeigh to bomb something to get across a message. Not a smart thing to do on your part.
Post a Comment