Proposed change in the oath of office

In making my previous post I failed to notice this. In this link is a little side bar on the subject, also from Spokane Valley, Washington.

Here’s a snip;
Spokane Valley city staff are researching a resident’s suggestion that city officials promise to “refuse to enforce any law that I deem to be unconstitutional, even if it’s upheld by the courts or I’m ordered to do so by my superiors.”

Now THAT’S what I’m talkin’ ’bout. Go read the whole thing. It needs to go farther though, if it’s to have the needed effect. It needs to include a declaration that the oath-keeper will use all means available to protect citizens from outside authorities attempting to enforce unconstitutional laws or rules. Then we’ll start to have a real, constitutional republic.

Adding; “…and to this I pledge my life, my fortunes, and my sacred honor” wouldn’t hurt either. Those in law enforcement want us to see them as the “thin blue line” which protects us from aggression? OK then; let’s get serious about it for once.

4 thoughts on “Proposed change in the oath of office

  1. Then again, it should be obvious that the existing standard oath of office already requires this. “Protect and defend the Constitution” requires the individual to judge what is required to do so. It says “Constitution”, not “opinions of the courts”, or “orders of my superiors”.

    Along the same lines, the phrase from the military oath “all lawful orders of my superiors” implies an individual duty to judge each order as to whether it is or is not lawful.

    • According to the linked article, the oath for that particular city doesn’t have the bit about the U.S. constitution.

      • Indeed it does not; you can actually see this in the online copy of the Spokane Valley municipal code. That means the oath is illegal and is null and void, and the people claiming to hold office there don’t actually legally do so.
        Article VI: “…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; …”

Comments are closed.