Posted by Harry on 05/22/09

Our constitutions are ignored, violated, openly derided by those who swore an oath to uphold, protect, and defend them. Our liberties constantly threatened. These individuals need to be challenged on this. I am not a lawyer, but here are some laws pertaining to this question. Yes, we can throw oath breakers out of office, and possibly into jail! I am still doing some digging, but here is a sampler (see below). Why wait until 2010 to hope and pray we elect someone who will treat the oath and Constitution with respect? Yes this is always a worthy goal, but we have criminals lurking the halls of government right now! Oath breakers and bribe takers! The entire purpose of our embodied rule of law is to have it all followed. When oath breakers have free reign over our liberties and violate our laws with impugnity, this situation is by definition anarchy! We, for all intents and purposes have no Constitutions! We all see it. We are headed over the cliff towards full blown socialism and fascism is always lurking in the shadows. And our Constitutions are supposed to limit all this mess. If we the people do not challenge this, we will lose everything.

The violation of our rule of law is the common reality all Americans face, left or right!

"The best way to protect our rule of law is to actually use it!" - Me

Where's judge Napolitano when you need him? (I love the guy, but I emailed him about this 2 weeks ago about this stuff and have yet to get a reply, just frustrated).

Oath of Office for Federal Officials

Employees of the United States Government including all members of Congress are required to take the following oath before assuming elected or appointed office.

5 U.S.C. 3331:

"An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services shall take the following oath: 'I, AB, 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; 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.'"

United States Constitution

Article VI, Section 3

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

5 U.S.C. 3333:

"...an individual who accepts office or employment in the Government of the United states...shall execute an affidavit within 60 days after accepting the office or employment that his acceptance and holding of the office or employment does not or will not violate section 7311 of this title. The affidavit is prima facie evidence that the acceptance and holding of office or employment by the affiant does not or will not violate section 7311 of this title."

Federal Law Prohibiting Federal Officials

 From Advocating Overthrow of Government

Federal law specifically prohibits any individual from accepting or holding any position (including elected office) in the United States Government if he advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government.

5 U.S.C. 7311 (1):

"An individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States of the government of the District of Columbia if he (1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government..."

Advocate:

advocate:  To plead in favor of : defend by argument before a tribunal or the public : support or recommend publicly.  Webster's Third New International Dictionary

Advocate:  To speak in favor of or defend by argument. To support, vindicate, or recommend publicly.  Black's Law Dictionary

Federal Criminal Penalty for Violation of Oath of Office

Federal criminal law is explicit and direct regarding a violation of oath of office by federal officials which includes all members of Congress. The law requires the removal of the office holder as well a prison term or fine for the offender.

18 U.S.C. 1918:

"Whoever violates the provisions of section 7311 of title 5 that an individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he (1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government [and] shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year and a day or both."

Executive Order 10450

In order to instruct investigating federal officials such as the FBI as to what is a violation of the oath of office under 5 U.S.C. 3331 and 5 U.S.C. 7311, Executive Order 10450 was issued to serve as a guideline for determining what actions constituted a criminal violation of the oath of office by federal officials. The order affirms thelaw of 5 U.S.C. 7311 that is a criminal violation under 18 U.S.C. 1918 for a member of the government, which includes members of Congress, to "advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government."

Executive Order 10450 states (in part): "Whereas the interest of the national security require that all persons privileged to be employed in...the Government shall be reliable, trustworthy, of good conduct and character, and of complete and unswerving loyalty to the United States... it is hereby ordered as follows:

(a) The investigations conducted pursuant to this order shall be designed to develop information as to whether the employment or retention in employment...of the person being investigated is clearly consistent with the interests of the national security. Such information shall relate, but shall not be limited, to the following:

(4) Advocacy of use of force or violence to overthrow the government of the United States, or of the alteration of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means."

§ 241. Conspiracy against rights

How Current is This?

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured-

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

§ 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law

How Current is This?

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Posted 05/23/09 LydiaScott Granger, IN

Agreed! I often wonder if elected and appointed officials think the oath of office is ceremonial? Thier actions do indicate that the oath of office is not important. It has been going on for so long and it is widespread. The fact that it hasn't been addressed seems to indicate it is an accepted practice. There are a few who do observe the oath of office. When it is convenient the oath is observed and when it is not it isn't. Hopefully people will raise thier standards and start electing statesmen instead of polititians. Polititians think about the repurcussions of thier actions in terms of getting re-elected. Statesmen think about the repurcussions of thier actions in terms of future generations, unintended consequensces and oath of office. Polititians weild great power without virtue, discipline, restraint and integrity. Statesmen weild great power with virtue, discipline, restraint and integrity. We already see what happens with great power used without virtue, discipline, restraint and integrity. Let us make another choice.........

Posted 05/23/09 Harry Madison, IN

Thank you Lydia for agreeing with me here. You do realize that what I am suggesting isn't done in the voting booth, but rather in the courtroom. Yes we must elect 'statesmen' rather than 'politicians'(Lydia, this Hoosier voted for Andy Horning). But...with the two party monopoly combined with media bias, this has become very difficult. Feingold makes it much harder for third party candidates to recieve funding. We also saw what the media and the RNC did to Ron Paul, they blacked out his message, this was by design. The corruption we see in Washington is a direct reflection on who we are as a people because we the people are corrupted (not you and I, but in general). Getting the right people elected under this circumstance is very difficult, if not impossible. This is why the rule of law is our only option if we want to change things 'today'. Yes, always vote your conscience and vote for the right guy, even if the odds are against your vote. I care not about odds, only principle. The rule of law trumps the will of a corrupt majority. The law is the law and no one is above it. The law is what protects the rights of the one from the will of the majority. This is how our Constitution and Bill of Rights was designed to operate. Equal treatment and protection under the law.

Posted 05/24/09 LydiaScott Granger, IN

I guess I didn't realize that you were referring to the courtroom. I didn't think the courtroom was a viable option anymore with so many judges interpreting their own version of the law and outright telling juries that 'they' will do what the judge tells them to. The judicial system appears so corrupt, for every individual that is constitutionally minded there are 10 who are not. I suppose I am quite cynical about the whole thing, I would like to change that. What reading (other than the constitution)can you recommend for me to educate myself on this subject.

Posted 05/24/09 Harry Madison, IN

Actually Lydia, I have just started looking into this option a few weeks ago. I have reached out into the C4L for answers and ideas. I even emailed Judge Napolitano about this. We have open violations of our constitutions, Federal and State. The biggest obstacle to what I am proposing, as you correctly point out, is the judicial system, but all three branches are culpable for violating their oath of office. In my opinion, this option should be fully examined. As I have mentioned above, the root cause of the corruption in government is We the People are corrupted. The violations of our rule of law, the Constitutions being ignored, is the root of all of the ills of this nation. The common factor. C4L is our best hope to reeducate We the People. We the people are the problem, we the people are the answer. Have a good Memorial Day Lydia, I salute the oath keepers!

Posted 05/31/09 Harry Madison, IN

To all, I have had no response from Andrew Napolitano via email, but I did catch him substituting for Glenn Beck on 5/20/09 and was very disappointed with what I had heard. Calling for a Con con is NOT the answer! We need the current constitution (law) followed to the letter. What good will a new amendment do if it will be ignored like the current Constitution is? Or if SCOTUS will 'interpret' it to mean exactly opposite it's intent as written, like they have with the general welfare clause? We need to challenge oath breakers in open court! No other way! We need to stop playing nice! We need to remove all oath breakers! The Constitution is plainly written, no if, ands, or buts about it's meaning, no confusion about what 'is' means. Aren't any of you tired of this? Or am I standing alone here?

Posted 06/01/09 LydiaScott Granger, IN

Nope you are not standing alone! I agree with you whole heartily about the need to follow the constitution to the letter. I have absolutely no faith that the elected officials have the integrity, self discipline, restraint or virtue to handle the responsibility of a concon. They will most likely run amok like rabid frothing at the mouth derelicts who refuse to take their meds. This is too big a chance to take knowing full well that they have abused tax payer funds and continue to ignore their oath of office. They do not have the ability to handle such a huge responsibility.

Posted 06/02/09 rickw Zionsville, IN

I read on World Net Daily about HR 450, which among other things, provides "...the courts and the people could hold Congress accountable and eliminate acts that reach beyond the scope of the Constitution." http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageI d=94418 This article was from April, and I haven't had time to research -- does anyone know if C4L has gotten behind this bill, or plans to, to try and break it out of committee? Seems like it would be worthy of our support.

Posted 06/02/09 rickw Zionsville, IN

I read on World Net Daily about HR 450, which among other things, provides "...the courts and the people could hold Congress accountable and eliminate acts that reach beyond the scope of the Constitution." http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageI d=94418 This article was from April, and I haven't had time to research -- does anyone know if C4L has gotten behind this bill, or plans to, to try and break it out of committee? Seems like it would be worthy of our support.

Posted 06/02/09 rickw Zionsville, IN

Sorry for the double-post -- and here's a link to the bill in question. Appears to be buried in comittees. http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h450/show

Posted 06/03/09 Harry Madison, IN

Lydia, I do not support a Con-con. One really is not needed. And one right now would be devastating to our republic. The people we have currently in all three branches are of deplorable character and are basically criminals. The violation of the oath of office is a criminal offense, according to US Code (see original post) and carries penalties including removal from office and jail time. I am not a lawyer, I wish I knew more about this stuff, I think this should be fully explored. I am fishing for answers from C4L and elsewhere. (Any Constitutional lawyers out there?). This could be the golden opportunity for the liberty movement to really fix things. In court. I am tired of watching endless Constitutional violations from all three branches of our government, and it is all left unchallenged in the legal sense, (save for debate and the election booth. Our elected officials laugh at our tea parties. We bring our torches and pitch forks, say our piece, then disperse). What good is our laws if they aren't used? They were written to protect us and we do not use them. Our current Constitution is what they swear thier oath to uphold, protect, and defend, and all of them violate this oath, ignore and disregard the rule of law of the Constitution, and trample our rights. For all intents and purposes we have no Constitution, we have anarchy. Concerning the tea parties, maybe our politicians won't be laughing so hard if we openly discuss 18 U.S.C 1918 and what we intend to do with it...:) The point I am trying to make Lydia, nobody is above the law...but we are acting like some are and that we are all somehow helpless against this tyranny. We have the law and the Constitution and 'they' are the ones violating it. About standing alone, I know I am not alone. I was just frustrated with Judge Napolitano's call for a con-con...and very very disappointed by this development.

Posted by Harry on 05/11/09

   The oath of office is sworn or affirmed by every government official, whether elected or appointed to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Yet we have blatant and widespread disregard for the Constitution or the limits contained therein. We have rapent disregard for civil liberties, We have total disregard for any limits set on the various branches of government, the separation of powers has been clouded and confused, the checks and balances is nearly non-existant. Constitutional violations have been made mainstream for decades. Social security, income tax, federal reserve system, undeclared wars and the Patriot Act, to name a few.

   We live under a Republic, with the Rule of law, the Constitution is our guide and our basis of law. The oath of office is a part of this law! Why can we not challenge violations of the oath of office? Or can we?

   Walker vs Members of Congress is one mans challenge at this baltant disregard for the Constitution. I have just recently discovered that 39 States have been petitioning Congress since 1933 to repeal the 16th Amendment via Article 5 calls for Convention. Congress has been ignoring this 'Unconstitutionally' for a long time. As a matter of fact over 750 calls for Convention via Article 5 have been ongoing, with Congress ignoring them. Walker has challenged Congress on this with criminal law.

   Here is the bottom line, are our elected and appointed officials above the law, or subject to them? If they are above the law, then this needs to change! If they are indeed subject to them, then they need to be held to them. The oath of office and it's violation does have criminal consequences. Read Walker vs. Members of Congress at this link.

http://foavc.org/file.php/1/Articles/Violation%20of%20Oath%20of%20Office%20and%2
0Walker%20v%20Members%20of%20Congress.htm

   As a republic, governed by the rule of law, the oath of office must carry legal weight, and it most certainly does. I care not what the majority wants, my Constitutional rights as a citizen are infringed and violated by a reckless Congress! I want the oath honored and respected, I want the Constitutional rule of law followed, as written. It is my right as a citizen to demand this, and my duty as a citizen to challenge the oath breakers!

   And if indeed 39 State legislatures have repealed the 16th amendment, then I want Congress to complete the process and call for an Article 5 convention to ratify this motion by the States!

What say you?

Posted 05/11/09 NancyK Austin, TX

The minute an Article 5 convention is opened, the entire Constitution is up for grabs. A convention cannot be limited to change just one thing, as many people think. It would have to be ratified, yes, but remember the way we got the Constitution in the first place. The delegates were getting together to amend the Articles of Confederation. The result was an entirely new document; the Constitution. And they didn't ratify it according to the rules currently in place. They ratified it by new rules they wrote. We were extremely lucky the first time. Today, it appears to me that such a Con-Con would provide the perfect opportunity for special interests and leftists to overthrow the one decent thing we have left. Willing to risk it?

Posted 05/11/09 MidWestLadyFarmer Winigan, MO

I agree with NancyK on the Con-Con. It's just too risky to do it since there are so many of our legislators that seem to abhor our rule of law. However, I'm all for holding the oath breakers accountable.

Posted 05/11/09 Caleb Kinley Hot Springs, AR

Has anyone ever heard of the US Code:Title 18, Section 241 and 242? Perhaps this could be used to remove those who ignore and blatantly disobey the constitution, and by doing so, they conspire to oppress the people through taxation and loss of liberties.

Posted 05/11/09 celticreeler Rolla, MO

Very interesting post. I am pretty fed up with the violations of the oath to support the Constitution. U.S. Code Title 18, Sections 241 and 242 are interesting. They seem to be current--as of Jan 3, 2007--and seem to prescribe punishments for depriving others of their Constitutional rights. Good grief. How can this be reconciled with what is going on?

Posted 05/11/09 Harry Madison, IN

I do not in any way support a Con-con. I want the 'current' Constitution followed to the letter, as written. And I want our elected and appointed officials to be held accountable to thier oath of office. Violate the oath, commit perjury, thown in jail, removed from office. Simple solution. When I posted this originally, I was unaware of the Con-con aspect of what Walker was up to. I do not want a Con-con! Challenging 'all 3 branches' on the oath of office for violating thier oath and running roughshod over the Constitutions (I say Constitutions, because these violations occur at the State levels as well, read your today!) is what 'must' occur. If we are to regain our nation, this is a logical must. The rule of law is broken, it must be fixed. We have the cards stacked against us trying to elect decent officials that do regard and take the oath seriously. The two party system monopoly guarantees oath breakers and criminals continuously get elected. The media blacks out the good third party candidates who really would fix things right. The two major parties and the media can not ignore the fact when thier co-conspirators are brought to court! This will have to be in the public arena! When all elected and appointed officials are charged with perjuring their oath of office! There is really no other way to play this game. Here's a slogan for anyone who wants to use it, "The Rule of Law can only be championed by using it!"

Posted 05/12/09 Harry Madison, IN

Celticreeler, This [law] can only be reconciled with what is going on if 'we the people' allow this activity to continue. Caleb, Thank you for the citation of legal code. It may be useful in the future. Maybe you could refresh our elected and appointed officials on how GOD hears an oath sworn with his name attached to it. (couldn't help but notice the collar in your picture). Jesus warned not to do it. Not a very bright thing to do. As far as Walker v Members of Congress, the only useful part I can see is the arguements concerning the violation of the oath of office. Perjury does carry a 5 year sentence and a removal from office. Now, something of the other side of the coin, those that do honor the oath of office, and GOD bless each and everyone of them! http://oath-keepers.blogspot.com/

Posted by Harry on 02/14/09

When one reads The Declaration of Independence, one can not deny the authors prescribed to 'Natural law' which states that individuals have unalienable rights to 'life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness'. These rights were GOD given and no power (State) has the authority to breach them. They further write that the governed have the right and the duty to separate from or remove despotic forms of government. They also describe the form of government they intended to replace the Crown with, a Republic with 'rule of law', and the 'rule of law' was to protect the individual liberties of the governed. They created that within the document of the Constitution of the United States. And the various states of the Federal Union all agreed to be 'Republican' in form as well.

How far this nation has strayed from this original intent! Where the 'legal positivism' of 'collectivists' run amok has turned our nation into the worst form of government available, a Democracy! This nation has become socialistic. It is our right and our duty to uphold the 'rule of law' of the Constitutions, the 'natural law' contained within the various Bills of Rights of our Union and of our States, and to separate ourselves from the tyranny of the 'collective'. We need to remind our elected officials that they can be replaced in 2010 unless they get with the oringal program...:)

The States can place our Federation in check, called the 10th Amendment. Any State that attempts to revitalize the 10th amendment should be supported. Oklahoma is doing it...:)

Posted 02/14/09 Snorkeler none, TX

My mother told me the word "democracy" appears nowhere in the Constitution of the United States.

Posted 02/14/09 Harry Madison, IN

Your Mother told you correctly. Too bad the media here and politicians everyday tell us it is. We were to be governed by the 'rule of law' not the 'majority'.

Posted by Harry on 01/19/09

Let's all call our assemblymen and tell them we want this, like yesterday. A return to the gold standard by Indiana will help to protect our state economy from the hyper-inflation we all know is coming. You can get more details on SB 453 in the State index on this site. I would really like to see more States introduce this kind of legislation to protect themselves as well from the Federal deficit spending frenzy of the Bush years and all the Congress / Federal Reserve bailouts!

We need to support this legislation in the Indiana Assembly! Call your reps!

Some more info on SB 453!

http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2009/IN/IN0453.1.html

Posted by Harry on 01/14/09

We often heard of the dichotomy between liberalism and conservatism, or Americanism vs globalism which is alot closer, but I think the real dichotomy is between collectivism and individualism. The battle we find ourselves today is between the idea of individualism vs the idea of collectivism. This explaination is closer to the root analysis of what we all face as individualists.

Almost every idea that liberals and neo-conservatives express are in terms of collectivism. They all seek to bring us closer to collectivism via 'the greater good.' But the individual gets lost in their equation. Individual liberties mean very little to the collectivist. The 'greater good' outweighs the liberties of the individual to the collectivist way of thinking.

From anti-smoking ordinances, to seat belt laws, to gun bans...somehow the 'greater good' out weighs the rights to life, liberty, and property spoken of in the Declaration, and guaranteed  by the Bill of Rights.

G. Edward Griffon can explain this dichotomy far better than me. I actually learned of this concept from him a few days ago. Here is a video clip I found...it is in 2 parts.

"There is no such a thing as a forest, a group is an abstract concept, there is only individual trees." This is profound...enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDIdBq7bcXU

Posted 01/15/09 Harry Madison, IN

Thanks Son of Liberty for the video. I haven't seen the video before that you posted. Good one! I always liked G. Edward Griffon...a good patriot! I agree everyone needs to watch this video series. Collectivism vs individualism is about as simple of terms as one can get to our battle and right on the mark. I can not wait to forward the video link to my brother, thanks again.

Posted 01/20/09 Matt Wolf Bloomington, IN

I usually think of the true dichotomy being between those who subscribe to "natural law" vs "positive law". Natural law assumes we are born with certain unalienable right that no person has the right in infringe on. Positive law, or legal positivism, claims that is something is good, then it should be done. -laws are rules made, whether deliberately or unintentionally, by human beings; -there is no inherent or necessary connection between the validity conditions of law and ethics or morality. The liberty movement naturally subscribes to natural law. Positive law is what has led to government programs that redistribute wealth, while natural law would to to these programs as fundamentally immoral. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wi ki/Positive_law

Posted 01/21/09 Harry Madison, IN

Thanks Matt for the Wiki references. These concepts of natural law, individualism, positive law, collectivism appear to overlap. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism (check out the subtitle 'political individualism'). This is all fascinating to learn! This stuff is definately not taught in public schools. I agree with natural law, everyone is born with unalienable rights and no one has the right to infringe upon them. What I like about the video series that Son of Liberty posted, is the logical series of arguements leading all the way up to the proper role of government. That is, the only true function of government is to protect the liberties of all it's citizens. That is it. And only a republic can support such a theme with 'rule of law' protecting them. I tend to agree with Bastiat's arguements concerning the rights to life, liberty, and property, in his work, "The Law" All rights come from the right to life. And life is GOD given...:) Later.