Ideological differences-Part 7: Oath of Office and the Policy manual
Updated: Jan 6, 2021
I always knew why Sheriff’s took an oath to the Constitution but I never understood why Police did. Personally, although it sounds warm and fuzzy, we all know this is a bit problematic and with all due respect, empty.
The oath for police is empty not because people that swear it don’t honor its reverence but that is directly challenges the authority of a superior! That’s right! The Oath for a hired or appointed is a direct affront to the Mayor, Governor or "superior" because the oath according to the Mayor should be to the Cities Policy Manual not the Constitution because in most cases are conflicting. Police, for example, are appointed or hired, they are not elected, their allegiance is to the employer not the people they serve and if challenged they are fired! Now there is a Conflict of Interest!
So, again with all due respect I ask, who is the Superior? The Constitution or the Cities Policy Manual? I argue it’s the Policy Manual. Why? Because one would be fired if they crossed the Mayor, Governor or other 'Superior" or adhered to moral conscience and the Constitution if the policy violated them!
So, in my view, someone craftily created a clever way to bring them all under the banner of the oath and few even see the dichotomy: The answer to alleviate conflicts within the oath- to pledge allegiance to them all even though such adherence is inconsistent. Our military men take an oath, the UCMJ even has a moral exemption provision in it. What would happen and if one disobeyed a direct order on those grounds? Would they be held in contempt and held to face a court Marshal?
The Oath today includes adherence to the U.S. Constitution, the State Constitution, The laws of the state of Idaho AND the policies of the City and the orders of any unelected bureaucratic agency or maybe policies of all of them?
Many of these people couldn’t tell you one thing about our government, what type we have, the Principles or the limitations and we are led to believe that these edicts are constitutional? Is the Fox now guarding the hen house?
I would publicly debate that this is an impossibility because anything other than the lawful creation of laws is not law and therefore inconsistent with the Constitution. What if the Policy or order violated the state constitution or what if either violated the U.S Constitution? In an oath like the Police oath, this is an impossibility but Our Founders didn’t think so. Marbury V Madison stated that any law repugnant to the Constitution was null and Void. If freedom is what the Founders envisioned, how is it that government regulation is constitutional? Besides the Constitution was created to limit government to “few and defined powers” so that the people could be free.
Today we have King George’s at every level of government and they are somehow acting lawfully?
Take the Mayor’s order on a city-wide mask mandate. Where does she get the lawful authority to make such a demand and what would prevent her from abusing her power being a tyrant? Nothing.
Look at Brad Little, he mandated that certain people were essential and others weren’t? According to our Constitution and Equal justice under the law, The Founders created a Provision that there were to be no Titles of Nobility which meant that no one was more special than anyone else and so the Governor has chosen by decree who is special and who is not?
I have been told my whole life, I am non-essential and the multitude of people I talk to that grew up in dysfunctional families that lack self esteem are supposed to just accept that they are now labeled non-essential? This is in complete violation of every law I know of especially God’s law and our Constitution, to wit, “we are all fearfully and wonderfully made” and we are all equal in the eyes of God” and substantiated by our Constitution. The Governors edict could literally allow for the isolation of non-essentials to be isolated from those that are essential as a stepping stone to the 21st century beginnings of a Holocaust? I mean, we were just called the Enemy as “right wing extremists” just a few short years ago and wasn’t the NDAA set up precisely for this type of isolation? Sections 1031 and 1032 were a perfect explanation along with the MIAC report.
Are these orders and edicts consistent with the Constitution? I say no. First the Governor didn’t have the authority and second, he denied the ability for the legislature to control him and his edicts! What happened to our Guarantee of a republican form of Government? What happened to the People’s ability to, at all times, Control the abuse of government? The legislature’s answer is to allow the Governor uncontrolled arbitrary power until we come back in session in January? Talk about inconsistencies!