OT- The oath of enlistment

[Otto]

I just re-enlisted, reluctantly, into the Army National Guard. I have previously enlisted or re-enlisted 3 times into the Navy, and once into the Guard. All four times I was asked to recite the same oath as below. I memorized it because at the time it seemed important.

"I, Full Name, do solemnly swear 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; and that I will obey orders from the President, and from the officers appointed over me, in accordance with the laws and regulations of the United States. So help me God."

There were slight variations of the "laws and regulations" part, but the rest of it was always the same.

This time I was asked to recite a completely different "oath," which wasn't really an oath at all, but a bunch of legalese along the lines of "I voluntarily re-enlist on this date of my own free will, blah blah, and I understand that my new period of enlistment ends on X date." Nothing at all about the Constitution, or defending anything against anyone.

Now, on one hand, I have always thought any spoken oath was kind of pointless, because anyone can recite anything. Whether one feels bound by an oath, spoken or private, is a matter of one's own conscience, or lack thereof. The signature on the contract is what binds one to his duty, in the eyes of the law. Even so, I find it suspicious that the Oath of Enlistment has been changed so dramatically.

Comments?

[Wes]

I don't like the sound of that. I took the same oath as you did years ago. It really sunk in when I recited those words, that I was enlisting for a reason other than getting some schooling and a job. They did mean something to me, more than signing the contract did.
I'm sure somewhere along the line somebody objected to the word 'God' or some such nonsense. Besides, the world is being run by lawyers.

[Andrew]

That is odd.

[jengel]

Could it be because the Natl Guard is a state organization that takes it's orders from the Governor of your state through the Adjutant General. It isn't Federal until absolutely necessary. Just a thought.

[Blaine]

This does not sound good at all......... I've been retired from active duty for 16 years and that oath means something to me...maybe more now than when I was active. Are you a contracter that needs to be NG for work purposes? That's a stipulation for some civilian DoD contracters, I've heard. Maybe they are different, somehow?

[Otto]

Could it be because the Natl Guard is a state organization that takes it's orders from the Governor of your state through the Adjutant General. It isn't Federal until absolutely necessary. Just a thought.

For my initial enlistment into the Guard, the words " the Governor of Ohio" were inserted between " the President" and "and the officers." Otherwise it was the same oath.

Are you a contracter that needs to be NG for work purposes? That's a stipulation for some civilian DoD contracters, I've heard. Maybe they are different, somehow?

The National Guard has a Technician program. Technicians are civilian gov't employees who work in support of the Guard, mostly in maintenance and supply. One of the requirements for the prgoram is to be a drilling Guard Soldier (or Airman.)

I am not a Technician, I am a traditional Soldier, one-weekend-a-month type.

[Jayhawker]

Oaths should never be taken lightly and should never be confused with a statement of intent to show for work. Sounds like someone would like to remove references to lawful defense and support of the constitution and insert a simple open contract. Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but any job that involves authority over the general populace or a special trust should contain an oath of office. An every one of them should end with "So help me G-d".

[gamekeeper]

Oaths should never be taken lightly and should never be confused with a statement of intent to show for work. Sounds like someone would like to remove references to lawful defense and support of the constitution and insert a simple open contract. Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but any job that involves authority over the general populace or a special trust should contain an oath of office. An every one of them should end with "So help me G-d".

Hear Hear.

[JReed]

Wierd to say the least. If it makes you feel better us Jarheads are still using the standard oath. In fact many CO's like to have the Marine say the oath at promotions also. I have said it qyite a few times in the last 12 years.

[Bruce Scott]

I know this has bugger all to do with the topic but the subject of oaths always get my back up.

This is the oath I swore back in 1967. It remains only slightly altered today today.

I [full name] swear that I will well and truly serve Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors according to law, as a soldier in the [Royal Australian Navy/Australian Regular Army/ Royal Australian Airforce] for the period of [three/six] years or until my service is sooner lawfully terminated, that I will resist Her enemies and that in all matters appertaining to my service I will faithfully discharge my duty according to law.

So help me God.

- The sooner this country wakes up and severs it's archaic connection to the BRITISH monarchy the happier I will be -

In 1999 the Australian Republic Referendum was defeated by monarchists who still want a foreign head of state for Australia.

[Cast Bullet Hunter]

"I, Full Name, do solemnly swear 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; and that I will obey orders from the President, and from the officers appointed over me, in accordance with the laws and regulations of the United States. So help me God."

My recollection is the phrase was LAWFUL ORDERS, not just orders. This makes quite difference. But that was the oath 40 years ago.

Note also there is no time limit or other limiting language, such as "While in service of the United States", which releases you from this oath at the end of military service. Once taken you are committed for life. Think of the implications of this, especially "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, both foreign and domestic". (Again the wording until at least 1964 when I enlisted.) Just consider what and who could constitute "enemies of the Constitution"!

[Hobie]

I'll check to see if it has changed in VA. It had not last I heard. Of course I've now been retired for 7 years!

To me an oath is a personal and inviolate committment above and beyond any legal requirement. As I read the enlistment contract, the contract is to ensure the government does for you and the oath to ensure that you do for the government.

[Otto]

"I, Full Name, do solemnly swear 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; and that I will obey orders from the President, and from the officers appointed over me, in accordance with the laws and regulations of the United States. So help me God."

My recollection is the phrase was LAWFUL ORDERS, not just orders. This makes quite difference. But that was the oath 40 years ago.

Note also there is no time limit or other limiting language, such as "While in service of the United States", which releases you from this oath at the end of military service. Once taken you are committed for life. Think of the implications of this, especially "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, both foreign and domestic". (Again the wording until at least 1964 when I enlisted.) Just consider what and who could constitute "enemies of the Constitution"!

That's where the "in accordance with the laws and regulations..." came into play. My original oath had slighly different verbage, with the same substantive meaning: "...according to law, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

[rjohns94]

I like the oath you first quoted. Means so much to me and the two decades that the words carried me through the duties I performed . hmmmmmm

[Ysabel Kid]

This is not good...

[Old Ironsights]

The most important thing to remember, is all of this:

"that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey orders from the President, and from the officers appointed over me, in accordance with the laws and regulations of the United States. So help me God."

is a subordinate clause to this:

"I, Full Name, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; "

Not the current Government, but The Constitution. The two may, in fact, be in diametric opposition.

The Primary Clause recognises that there may be an occasion when following the tertiary clause will come into conflict with the Constitution.

The Secondary Clause reinforces the Primary Clause, and tacitly recognises that the one taking the Oath may be asked to forgo "true faith and allegiance to the same" - even, perhaps, those mentioned in the Tertiary clause.

The Oath is like the 3 laws of Robotics. You cannot follow Clause 3 if it is in conflict with Clause 1 & 2.

[Otto]

The most important thing to remember, is all of this:

"that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey orders from the President, and from the officers appointed over me, in accordance with the laws and regulations of the United States. So help me God."

is a subordinate clause to this:

"I, Full Name, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; "

Not the current Government, but The Constitution. The two may, in fact, be in diametric opposition.

The Primary Clause recognises that there may be an occasion when following the tertiary clause will come into conflict with the Constitution.

The Secondary Clause reinforces the Primary Clause, and tacitly recognises that the one taking the Oath may be asked to forgo "true faith and allegiance to the same" - even, perhaps, those mentioned in the Tertiary clause.

The Oath is like the 3 laws of Robotics. You cannot follow Clause 3 if it is in conflict with Clause 1 & 2.

All of this is true, of course, except that it may be irrelevant if we no longer are taking this oath. Jreed says Marines are still using it. Maybe what happened to me was some sort of weird oversight. I asked my commander about it afterward, and he was dismissive, which surprised me. He's a good man (for an officer) and I've always had alot of respect for him.

[Hobie]

With all due respect to anyone here who is/was an officer in some military service, it is my experience that many officers are dismissive of concerns expressed by even very senior (and experienced) NCOs. Why? Because of the class thing. This is my "major" concern about McCain. He's a typical I-know-better-than-you elitist and not so coincidentally 3rd generation officer.

[Old Ironsights]

...All of this is true, of course, except that it may be irrelevant if we no longer are taking this oath. Jreed says Marines are still using it. Maybe what happened to me was some sort of weird oversight. I asked my commander about it afterward, and he was dismissive, which surprised me. He's a good man (for an officer) and I've always had alot of respect for him.

Which is why we who have taken the Oath - it is not revocable - should be VERY concerned if it is modified or excised in order to support the current Gooberment Uber Alles.

[Otto]

With all due respect to anyone here who is/was an officer in some military service, it is my experience that many officers are dismissive of concerns expressed by even very senior (and experienced) NCOs. Why? Because of the class thing. This is my "major" concern about McCain. He's a typical I-know-better-than-you elitist and not so coincidentally 3rd generation officer.

I agree completely about the attitude of many officers, especially Naval officers (McCain.) I often tell my fellow soldiers that Naval officers are stuck in a 1600's mindset, particularly in their attitude towards the enlisted swine, who are full of vice and corruption. The few Army officers I have met may still be a bit elitist, but are nowhere near as contemptuous of the enlisted.

My Commander is the worst type of officer. He is what Naval officers call a "Mustang" and is roughly analogous to the scroungiest trailer-trash who wins the lottery, and wants to join the country club. He is prior enlisted, and so is burdened with a little more common sense than some of the rest.

[FWiedner]

Personally I consider all documents to be signed under duress, but my word is my bond.

I honestly believe that in the future no oath will mention the Constitution, and it will be a deliberate omission.

[Jeeps]

I honestly believe that in the future no oath will mention the Constitution, and it will be a deliberate omission.

If those in power cannot bend it or make it mean what they want, then they will surely try to walk away from it.

[jeepnik]

Could it be because the Natl Guard is a state organization that takes it's orders from the Governor of your state through the Adjutant General. It isn't Federal until absolutely necessary. Just a thought.

One of the reasons for the National Guard is under the governors of the various states is that in the event of the federal government becoming totalitarian, they would be directed by those governors to rise up against the federal government. Remember, the framers of the Constitution were states rightist. That why that little provision the "tenth amendment" was put into the Bill Of Rights. The problem is it "is" the most overlooked and violated "Right".

[Leverdude]

Could it be because the Natl Guard is a state organization that takes it's orders from the Governor of your state through the Adjutant General. It isn't Federal until absolutely necessary. Just a thought.

One of the reasons for the National Guard is under the governors of the various states is that in the event of the federal government becoming totalitarian, they would be directed by those governors to rise up against the federal government. Remember, the framers of the Constitution were states rightist. That why that little provision the "tenth amendment" was put into the Bill Of Rights. The problem is it "is" the most overlooked and violated "Right".

Not positive but I think now that the NG is federalized thats mostly just tradition now. The Governors can order them out for emergency catastrophe relief but I'd bet that if push came to shove Federal power would trump states rights in a conflict. Hell their serving in Iraq arent they? Cant defend your state if your killing camel jockeys. How many would obey orders to fight their countrymen if so ordered might be a different story.

[C. Cash]

Please keep us informed of what you may find out on this. If the oath was different and this has been changed, this would be very concerning. I was RA and swore to defend the Constitution, and don't know anything about the NG oath.

[gamekeeper]

I know this has bugger all to do with the topic but the subject of oaths always get my back up.


- The sooner this country wakes up and severs it's archaic connection to the BRITISH monarchy the happier I will be -

In 1999 the Australian Republic Referendum was defeated by monarchists who still want a foreign head of state for Australia.

I agree with you on that one Bruce, Australia is a great young country and deserves to make it's own way. Britain is not the place it once was and if I could, I would sever my connections with it too!

[Doc Hudson]

I
Now, on one hand, I have always thought any spoken oath was kind of pointless, because anyone can recite anything. Whether one feels bound by an oath, spoken or private, is a matter of one's own conscience, or lack thereof. The signature on the contract is what binds one to his duty, in the eyes of the law. Even so, I find it suspicious that the Oath of Enlistment has been changed so dramatically.

Comments?

I don't find it suspiocious, I find it to be downright ominous!

I disagree with you about the oath though. A contract is nothing but a piece of paper and a smart lawyer can break it with ease. An oath binds a man by his honor, and an honorable man would lay down his life rather than break his solemn oath. Of course if the person making the oath is lacking in honor, no number of contracts of oaths will make him fulfill his duty.

In my opinion, the military is gearing up for a major violation of posse commitatas. For several years, there have been reports of soldiers being questioned about their willingness to disarm citizens and to follow orders in the event of civil unrest and martial law. Things really are not looking to great for the good guys.

[Doc Hudson]

Could it be because the Natl Guard is a state organization that takes it's orders from the Governor of your state through the Adjutant General. It isn't Federal until absolutely necessary. Just a thought.

One of the reasons for the National Guard is under the governors of the various states is that in the event of the federal government becoming totalitarian, they would be directed by those governors to rise up against the federal government. Remember, the framers of the Constitution were states rightist. That why that little provision the "tenth amendment" was put into the Bill Of Rights. The problem is it "is" the most overlooked and violated "Right".

The National Guard is not the same as the State Militias organized under the Militia Act of 1792.

The National Guard is a creature of the Federal Government, created by Federal law in 1893. You think the Guard belongs to the states, look and see where the pay checks come from, they come from the Department of Defense. Who buys the equipment? Not the states, DoD supplies and owns all weapons, vehicles, and other equipment used by the National Guard. That is why Guard units leave all their heavy equipment behind in the Sand Box when their deployment ends.

No sir, State control over the National Guard is nominal at the very least.

[Hobie]

Could it be because the Natl Guard is a state organization that takes it's orders from the Governor of your state through the Adjutant General. It isn't Federal until absolutely necessary. Just a thought.

One of the reasons for the National Guard is under the governors of the various states is that in the event of the federal government becoming totalitarian, they would be directed by those governors to rise up against the federal government. Remember, the framers of the Constitution were states rightist. That why that little provision the "tenth amendment" was put into the Bill Of Rights. The problem is it "is" the most overlooked and violated "Right".

Not positive but I think now that the NG is federalized thats mostly just tradition now. The Governors can order them out for emergency catastrophe relief but I'd bet that if push came to shove Federal power would trump states rights in a conflict. Hell their serving in Iraq arent they? Cant defend your state if your killing camel jockeys. How many would obey orders to fight their countrymen if so ordered might be a different story.

I think you have some of the same misconceptions that many "RA" soldiers have.

The National Guard as it exists today is in a sort of netherworld twixt State and Federal control. The Feds have a chain of command that extends to the State Adjutant Generals BUT, they can't really enforce any directives except by controlling funding. In that they have a lot of control because most states support their NG mostly through Federal funds. The biggest part of that money is payroll and the Feds control the states by threatening to cut the payroll by so-many people if they don't toe their line. Meanwhile, state Governors are lobbying their political reps (friends in many cases) to put the pressure on the DOD to not cut but to increase the troop strength in their states. By law the NG can be Federalized and have been with many NG units having multiple deployments.

The funding thing is a enigma to those who haven't worked it with troops' status possibly changing everyday for a week with their payroll coming from state or federal sources. The law determines exactly what status they are in at any given time. A soldier can be on state duty, paid by the state at one rate, on Monday and on drill status in mid-week with the payroll paid by the feds through the state and then on Saturday have transitioned to Federal/Active Duty status not under control of the state.

As to what the National Guard soldiers would do in some sort of ACW rewrite, well that is hard to say. In my opinion it would split along geographical lines with urban soldiers more likely to support the government and rural soldiers more likely to support the people in a govt vs. people conflict. I don't think you can say for certain one way or another. I don't think it is a constructive exercise either.

[Hobie]

I
Now, on one hand, I have always thought any spoken oath was kind of pointless, because anyone can recite anything. Whether one feels bound by an oath, spoken or private, is a matter of one's own conscience, or lack thereof. The signature on the contract is what binds one to his duty, in the eyes of the law. Even so, I find it suspicious that the Oath of Enlistment has been changed so dramatically.

Comments?

I don't find it suspiocious, I find it to be downright ominous!

I disagree with you about the oath though. A contract is nothing but a piece of paper and a smart lawyer can break it with ease. An oath binds a man by his honor, and an honorable man would lay down his life rather than break his solemn oath. Of course if the person making the oath is lacking in honor, no number of contracts of oaths will make him fulfill his duty.

In my opinion, the military is gearing up for a major violation of posse commitatas. For several years, there have been reports of soldiers being questioned about their willingness to disarm citizens and to follow orders in the event of civil unrest and martial law. Things really are not looking to great for the good guys.

Doc, prior to my retirement I was never asked such a thing. I retired 7½ years ago but I've not heard of such since then among VIRGINIA National Guard soldiers.

[jfwlb]

I think I can shed a little light on this subject.

There are two distinct and different oaths. One is for an original enlistment, and one for a re-enlistment.

As someone else pointed out, the original oath of enlistment is binding for life(theoretically) and has not changed since I joined the Army in 1985.

The oath for re-enlistment is the one you are asked to recite that involves dates and "legalese".

This is not to say that you can't do the enlistment oath at a re-enlistment ceremony. I just performed a re-enlistment ceremony last weekend for a soldier and we did the whole enlistment oath with him standing in front of formation, a flag in the background, etc.., we also had his family there to watch and to me it is always stirring, even after 22 years in the Army. We did the re-enlistment swearing in before the actual ceremony. I think it is the Commander's discretion whether to do the whole pomp and circumstance thing, but I try to do it every time as it instills a sense of pride in the soldier. And no, I'm not a Commander, just a lowly Acting First Shirt.

John

One more thing(sorry).
I too have heard all the stories about soldiers being asked whether or not they would disarm American civilians. I have never been able to verify any of these claims and I have tried. I have been in the U.S. Army and the Ca. Army National Guard for over twenty-two years and still counting and not once have I been asked or heard directly from a soldier that they have been asked this question.

[C. Cash]

John,

Many thanks for the clarification! That makes sense.

[jfwlb]

Hobie you are spot on regarding state versus federal funding.(sorry I didn't put this in my first post)

I remember in 1992 when the Rodney King riots unfolded, that we were on state orders for the first 5 days or so, then under federal orders for the next 5 days or so, then back on state orders for the remaining 6-7 days. What that meant was that state orders meant state money, and federal orders meant federal money. There definitely was a difference with federal money being more.

It didn't mean anything regarding how we did our job, just that under federal orders we received more money due to more benefits. The same thing happened in 2004 when I was activated for Iraq for 18 months and now where I am being scheduled to deploy to the Balkans for 12 months. WooHoo! Paid vacation to Europe for 12 months courtesy of Uncle Sam!

John

[Ridgerunner]

As I recall, Gov. Maddox called out the Arkansas NG to prevent integration, and "Ike" federalized them to enforce integration of the Arkansas schools....