In comments to my earlier post, Eli Cabelly and M. Simon both remarked on the following oath:
As a veteran I pledged myself to defend the constitution of the USA against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
What I would like to know is what that means. What is a domestic enemy?
I did a little research, and the modern military oath is grounded not in the text of the Constitution, but in a Civil War loyalty oath:
The first oath under the Constitution was approved by Act of Congress 29 September 1789 (Sec. 3, Ch. 25, 1st Congress). It applied to all commissioned officers, noncommissioned officers and privates in the service of the United States. It came in two parts, the first of which read: “I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States.” The second part read: “I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully, against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and to observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States of America, and the orders of the officers appointed over me.” The next section of that chapter specified that “the said troops shall be governed by the rules and articles of war, which have been established by the United States in Congress assembled, or by such rules and articles of war as may hereafter by law be established.”
Although the enlisted oath remained unchanged until 1950, the officer oath has undergone substantial minor modification since 1789. A change in about 1830 read: “I, _____, appointed a _____ in the Army of the United States, do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the rules and articles for the government of the Armies of the United States.” Under an act of 2 July 1862 the oath became: “I, A.B., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have never borne arms against the United States since I have been a citizen thereof; that I have voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility thereto; that I have neither sought nor accepted nor attempted to exercise the functions of any office whatsoever under any authority or pretended authority in hostility to the United States; that I have not yielded voluntary support to any pretended government, authority, power, or constitution within the United States, hostile or inimical thereto. And I do further swear (or affirm) that, to the best of my knowledge and ability, 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.” An act of 13 May 1884 reverted to a simpler formulation: “I, A.B., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or 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.” This version remained in effect until the 1959 adoption of the present wording.
So, using the Civil War as context, the oath would seem to mean that those Americans engaged in or abetting armed hostility against the United States (as was the Confederacy and its supporters) would be deemed domestic enemies.
Beyond that, the word “enemy” awfully murky. If we consider that the oath involves the Constitution, I think it is fair to look to the Constitution for guidance in what might be a domestic enemy of the United States, and the constitutional definition of “treason” (from Article III, Section 3) comes readily to mind:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
That is a far cry from what many people today consider treason.
From the comment I cited:
I’m an independent. I can’t stand the democrats. However, I look at republican policies and it looks like they’re deliberately sabotaging this country and the constitution. As a veteran I pledged myself to defend the constitution of the USA against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I’m having a really hard time convincing myself not to take lethal action against the elected members of the GOP. Death is the punishment for treason. Their actions are either proof of incompetence or treason. Either way they’ll be gone.
A number of conservatives think liberals are all guilty of treason. Probably an even greater number think the OWS protesters are too. Does that mean that those who have taken the military oath have a moral obligation to start shooting these people (or arrest protesters at Zuccotti Park for treason), citing their oath as authority?
Does “enemy” simply mean simply anyone deemed anti-American or opposed to the Constitution?
Former Congressman Bob Dornan famously said that “Anybody who wants to legalize marijuana or any other illegal substance is the enemy of this country.” Dornan, known as “B-1 Bob” is a decorated veteran who took the oath under discussion.
Fine. I am for legalizing all drugs. Does that make me an enemy whom Dornan is obligated by his oath to shoot?
I don’t think so. But I thought the question was worth asking.
And I’m thinking that there may be tension between certain interpretations of the Civil War era oath and the stated constitutional goal of insuring domestic tranquility.
Comments
5 responses to “Insuring domestic tranquility”
I would have said that policies that someone thinks are meant to injure the country have to be regarded as “well-intentioned stupidity” (regardless of what you think of the people pushing said policies). Actions that would be treasonous (or in my view should be) would be maintaining membership in any organization that’s declared war against the USA, providing financial support to an organization that’s declared war against the USA, and doing either with an organization known to be supporting or fronting for an organization that’s declared war against the USA.
So… financing or joining the Muslim Brotherhood should be treason (they’ve been pretty overt about declaring war against the USA), financing or joining an organization you know is affiliated with/provides financial support for the Muslim Brotherhood, ditto. Arguing that the Muslim Brotherhood isn’t really a threat is not treasonous. Neither is pig-headed stupidity, and a good thing too, or the executioners would never be able to keep up.
Kate,
Which is why my agreement with the comment was limited.
Eric,
Honored as always to be of service.
But as far as I can tell, it’s not up to us to determine treasonous acts:
It’s up to the courts. We can act once treason has been determined, but not before. And we are not the arbiters.
Enemies, foreign or domestic, are determined by the President and the officers appointed above those taking the oath. The oath itself says as much.
Anyone taking the oath who cannot act like they believe that to be true become enemies themselves.
It only gets scary when around half the voting public is directly supported by the government.
So getting on TV and saying that attacking the United States with bombs, etc. as an act of holy war doesn’t provide way more than 2 witnesses or constitute an open confession? Hmmm.