This leads us to look into that subject of the oath, the Constitution. However, to understand this relationship, we need to look very closely at the document, and what it means.
I believe that this can be best understood by looking at the Constitution in a perspective of the application of the document, and just what the perception, by the oath takers, is of that document.
So, let's begin at the lowest level -- the on the street enforcement level. The cop (Sheriff's deputies, other armed agencies, including federal) perceive the Constitution that they took an oath to as what they have been told by their superiors is entailed in the Constitution. Let's refer to this as
Constitution #1. For example, and the Supreme court has played a role in this, if they are told that they can make searches and arrests based upon their individual judgment -- if they believe that a crime either has, or may be committed -- they are within their power to search and/or arrest people of whom they have suspicion.
This has become manifest because it was practiced by law enforcement, in violation of the Constitution. Once challenged, it can go before the courts, and, eventually, to the Supreme Court, where that Court will rule, often contrary to the Constitution
(About Ashwander v. TVA), which now gives us Constitution #2, that being the Constitution, as determined by the Supreme Court. However, if they had determined not to rule on the Constitutionality of a matter before them,
"The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of" (Ashwander, rule #4), then are we to assume that their rulings are actually interpretations of the Constitution?
This, then, leads us to
Constitution #3, the Constitution as written and intended by the Framers and those who ratified it. The Constitution is comprised of about 4,400 words. Add the first Ten Amendments, including the Preamble thereto, for another 700 words. Simple, yet easily understood; written in the English language, not in legalese; intended to be understood by any literate person, not subject to interpretation, except where construction failed to address certain conflicts that might arise, the Constitution was written for us, by our ancestors, to be the foundation for the continuation of a self-governed people, so long as we understood and abided by it.
We must first understand that our separation from English rule was predicated on the concept that the people "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." It was for the protection of Life, the preservation of Liberty, and the ability to acquire property, that lead to those Founders taking action to re-secure that which had been denied them -- the Rights of Englishmen -- by the British government.
We know that the purpose of government, as declared in the Preamble to the Constitution, is "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." We need only understand that
"promote the general Welfare" is preceded by "promote", not "provide", for us to proceed.
Clearly, no matter what our own emotions may suggest, there is nothing in the Constitution that makes any provision for the government to become a "charitable organization", taking from some and giving to others. In fact, this would be contrary to the principles of self-government, in that government has become the master and determines just whom he might favor with gifts (and the inherent votes that will follow from the beneficiary).
Let's look at some more of the precise wording of Constitution #3, as well as comments with regard to what was intended:
Article I, Section 8, clause 11: The Congress shall have the Power ... To declare War...
Congress has not declared war since December 1941, yet we have the longest war in our history going on, right now. The war in Afghanistan began in 2001. That is twelve years -- the longest war in our history. The Framers realized that the decision to go to war, and to invest the lives of America's youth, should lie with the representatives of the people, the Congress, and not with an individual. Why has Congress collectively rejected their oath by enacting legislation that allows the President to go to war, so long as Congress doesn't object? Quite simply, they can absolve themselves of the responsibility that they agreed to take upon themselves, when they took their oath. Quite possibly, their abrogation of responsibility results in substantial 'support' from the Military-Industrial Complex that President Eisenhower warned us of, when leaving office.
Article I, Section 8, clause (15) The Congress shall have the Power ... To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
This recognition of the Militia, whether called forth, or not, recognizes the Militia as an inherent part of the concept of self-government. Further, 10 U.S.C. § 311 states that "[t]he militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and... under 45 years of age." So, how is it that those who have taken an oath to the Constitution can object to, and demonize, those citizens who recognize their obligation to the Constitution. After all, is "all", ALL? Less, of course, those specifically exempted.
Section 4-- The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...
Just a single example, among many currently available, is the 2008 California Proposition 8, titled "Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment". The voters, in accordance with the California Constitution and laws, approved the Preposition, which resulted in making it a part of the California Constitution, which is an act of the "Republican Form of Government" guaranteed by the United States Constitution. After all, no authority was granted to the federal government that had anything to do with "marriage", except its recognition of marriage in 1 U.S.C. § 7, Definition of "marriage" and "spouse".
"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
However, California Supreme Court justices, who had taken oaths to both the California and federal constitutions, ruled, in "In re Marriage Cases", (43 Cal. 4th 757), that held that laws treating classes of persons differently based on sexual orientation should be subject to strict judicial scrutiny, and that an existing initiative measure limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the rights of same-sex couples under the California Constitution and may not be used to preclude them from marrying. However, in reviewing the California Constitution, I can find no reference to "same-sex couples".
On appeal to the federal courts, they, too, held, though on slightly different grounds, that the Proposition -- the will of the people of California -- was unconstitutional. They have yet to rule on the statute (1 U.S.C. §7) cited above, though apparently it has been constitutional for many decades. Those judges only took an oath to the federal Constitution, though, again, I find no reference that would grant the federal government to become any more involved in marriage than to recognize what it has been, for centuries.
Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
Contrary to many opinions, it does not say that there is a "separation between Church and State", which is attested to be the numerous depictions of Moses and the Ten Commandments on the United States Supreme Court building. So, let's look at what it says. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" Those cities and towns that have adopted Sharia Law have certainly done so. However, many states or counties had laws that were derived from the Ten Commandments. , even though many of those laws based upon the Ten Commandments have been removed.
However, there is a law that requires that a religion must pass certain steps (Internal Revenue Code) to qualify as a religion, thereby becoming exempt from taxation. That, in itself, seems to be a law respecting the establishment of religion, since the religion is not established (at least in the eyes of government), unless it abides by the law that establishes it as a religion. Once established, laws come into play that restricts what can be said by the religious exercise of the congregation. However, those who have sworn an oath to the Constitution, either as elected representatives, or, appointed, or hired, agents of government, have promulgated laws that, by reading of the words, and a review of how those words were applied by the Framers, we can conclude that the oaths have been violated, even though many of them were taken on a Bible.
Amendment 2: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I have trouble understanding why people can't understand, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms", which along with the Militia (previously mentioned), cannot be infringed. However, those who have taken an oath to the Constitution seems to be as remise in understanding what this means as they are in understanding the oath that they took.
Amendment 4: 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.
Searches are often conducted without a warrant, or at least a warrant served on the person whose property is to be searched. Legal process, for such as subpoenas, requires that paperwork be served. There are numerous methods of legal service, however, the constitutionally prescribed warrant is held to a much lower standard than, say, serving divorce papers. Divorce, however, is not protected by the Constitution.
The Amendment also requires a sworn statement of probable cause, and "describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Two hundred years ago, warrants were specific, describing exactly what was to be seized, and where it was located. More recently, a warrant might include the entire house, or property, seeking all papers, computers, discs, tapes, books, and anything else that might be found.
We also find that searches, with the blessing of the courts (whose judges have taken an oath), have allowed the police to make searches almost any time, relying on their nose, their ears, or their instinct, to justify the search. This, without question, is appalling. And, if nothing is found, there is no remedy for the person whose liberty has been lost, for the time involved, which doesn't even begin to suggest that there is any accountability on the part of the police. Roadside stops and searches have become a mainstay of law enforcement. Didn't law enforcement officer, too, take oaths? Perhaps to Constitution #1.
Did the Constitution intend a police state, or a free state, where the obligation was on the government, not on the people?
Amendment 5: No person shall ... be deprived of ... property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
Both "Eminent Domain" and "Asset Forfeiture" come to mind, when we read the wording of this Amendment. The former is lawful, though limited, while the latter is unlawful and unconstitutional, without equivocation -- unless you are an attorney intending to subvert the Constitution for financial gain.
So, we can start with the purpose, "public use". Public is not the government, it is us. The concept of eminent domain goes back centuries and was intended to make inviolate your right to own and posses property, with the sole exception of the "public good". So, what is this "public good"? Well, roads, canals, rivers, lakes, parks, even easements allowing utilities to be put across your land to serve others of the public. To extend this concept to land being condemned by eminent domain, and then sold to a private developer, who will then be paying a higher tax on the property than the previous owner(s), is bizarre. It is chicanery utilized to transfer one's property to another, and require that transfer to be forced, rather than voluntary, regardless of the compensation to the owner(s). The courts, however, by judges and justices sworn to the Constitution, have acquiesced to such chicanery.
Asset forfeiture, without any compensation, is clearly outside of any constitutionally vested authority. [N]or shall private property be taken ... without just compensation" leaves no room for any other construction of the intent. However, to those who have taken oaths, it is simply a matter of obfuscation to distort what was intended to that which will serve their friends and allies.
Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Based upon the above, have we retained those rights that were not enumerated in the "Bill of Rights"? Even those enumerated, which we have addressed here, are been denied, as has been explained.
Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
We have also seen that powers not delegated, such as marriage, have been assumed into "authorities" that were not delegated by the Constitution.
So, we can conclude that those who take oaths will take them to one of the 3 Constitutions. The police, for the most part, take them to Constitution #1. Most administrative officials, at all levels of government, being, perhaps, a bit more intelligent, tend to take their oath to Constitution #2. Few, if any, take it to Constitution #3, and that includes the highest powers -- the Justices of the Supreme Courts -- in government. They are more inclined to assist those others in government to increase their stranglehold on the people, and usurp powers that were never intended by the Constitution, or the state constitutions.
It is only when the people take an oath in court, or when military personnel take their oath upon induction, that the law expects them to abide thereby.
The Constitution has a provision (Article V) for making changes. The oath, however, has no such provision. Once given, the oath taker is bound thereby. Absent a change in the Constitution (Constitution #3), the violation of oath should result in immediate removal from office.
We have discussed what was intended, though some might suggest that what has been discussed is not what was intended. For those who want some insight into the intention of the Framers, we can look to how they practiced what they had written.
What could be more demonstrative of intent than their actions, which put that intent into practice?
Regarding juries, I would suggest
Essay on Trial by Jury (PDF) (1828)
Regarding searches, arrests, and the authority of law enforcement, I would suggest
Are Cops Constitutional? (PDF)
