Posted on 05/25/2015 11:38:33 AM PDT by Steve Newton
The wording of oaths taken by police officers, and other public officials, may vary slightly from state to state. However, they are all simple and straightforward.
(Excerpt) Read more at commonsenseforamericans.weebly.com ...
The wording of oaths taken by police officers, and other public officials, may vary slightly from state to state. However, they are all simple and straightforward. The affiant solemnly swears to support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States, the constitutions of their respective States, and to perform their duties with fidelity. The oath police officers in Utah swear to is found in Article IV, Section 10, of the Utah Constitution and reads: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this State, and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity.”
The International Association of Chiefs of Police has developed the following Oath of Honor that is designed to allow law enforcement officers worldwide to commit their professional lives to outstanding public service.
On my honor, I will never betray my badge, my integrity, my character, or the public trust. I will always have the courage to hold myself and others accountable for our actions. I will always uphold the constitution my community and the agency I serve.
The one thing all the oaths have in common is the “duty to obey and uphold the Constitution of the United States. Seems simple. But sometimes it isn’t.
It has become increasing obvious that whatever side of the aisle one stands on, the government has become unmanageable and has strayed far from the Constitutional roots that our founders laid out as the cornerstone of our Republic, these being the enumerated powers granted to the federal government by the several states as put forth in Article 1 Section 8.
Technically anything that is outside the enumerated powers given to Congress is not Constitutional. However, we live in the world of today as it has evolved from our founding.
Still the “duty to obey” should always be on all of our minds when we are enforcing the laws of our cities, counties and states. Let’s look at an example:
Your state passes a law stating that from “such and such” a date the possession of a firearm will become illegal and they have given you the responsibility to enforce this law. If you know your Constitution, and you should, you know that this law violates the 2nd Amendment and is therefore null and void.
However, your supervisors give you no choice; you will enforce this law or look for another job. If you do not obey, you will lose your job, your pension and all the hard work it takes to become a law enforcement officer. What are you going to do?
Upholding your oath doesn’t sound so simple now does it?
This can’t happen in the United States you say? Example from Connecticut:
With minor exceptions, state law prohibits giving an assault weapon to anyone; distributing, transporting, or importing an assault weapon; or keeping, offering, or exposing any such weapon for sale. It also, with minor exceptions, prohibits possession of an assault weapon unless the owner lawfully possessed the weapon before the ban took effect and obtained a certificate of possession from the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP) for it (in effect, registered the weapon). http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0241.htm
Lawmakers passed a law that is clearly not Constitutional, unenforceable and is widely ignored. It also made thousands of people criminals overnight. Fortunately they have backed off on enforcing this law but what if they had demanded you follow the letter of the law?
There’s that pesky oath again.
In my long career I have seen many injustices occur to law enforcement officers who tried to follow their conscience and oath. It’s a shame but most will say it was worth it.
Enjoy your career but forever keep in mind the oath you have taken. Follow it and you will always be able to hold your head up high. And that is the name of the game.
God bless and stay safe out there
Chief Steve Newton (ret)
Our law making class is theoretically bound by similar oath to abide by the Constitution. Guess which class has no ethics and morals.
LOL
Do I get three guesses?
According to the US Supreme Court decision in 2006, the mission of the police is NOT to “protect and serve”.
According to the US Supreme Court decision in 2006, the mission of the police is “ENFORCE THE LAW”.
Whatever that law is.
And whoever that law is written against.
Indeed
But a real police officer, or military person, or hopefully a lawmaker will do the right thing: Ignore the court.
From your mouth to Allah’s ear, as the saying goes...
LOL
I have a survey I need to post. It is an estimate of the number of law enforcement and military that will not fire on American people. It is interesting but the source is dubious.
Should they also ignore the court when it makes a decision that favors the public, but is not supported by the constitution, like say, Miranda?
Lots of laws are not directly mentioned in the Constitution and are upheld by the courts.
My opinion is if it is not Constitutional ignore it. You cannot pick and choose in regard to the Constitution.
(I believe a case can be made the Miranda is Constitutional)
Agreed!
This article will be published. I am hoping to “remind” our brothers and sisters of that oath.
> Should they also ignore the court when it makes a decision that favors the public, but is not supported by the constitution, like say, Miranda?
-You have the right to remain silent when questioned.
-Anything you say or do may be used against you in a court of law.
-You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future.
-If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning, if you wish.
-If you decide to answer any questions now, without an attorney present, you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney.
-Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?
That being said, they always and conveniently leave off the last part as it was originally scripted, “Nothing you say may be used in your defense.”
Yeah
Funny how that works.
Interesting. Very interesting....
Many laws that we argue are not constitutional are also upheld by the courts. The Constitution, and state constitutions establish a governing authority, supposedly representing the people. Whether they represent us as they should, or not, there are procedures to challenge and eliminate laws which exceed their constitutional authority. Cops should respect the laws created by the people they serve, even if they personally don’t agree with them. As an entity, a law enforcement agency can decide that a certain law is unconstitutional, and direct its officers to withhold enforcement as a challenge to the law. But short of an order that is blatantly tyrannical, I don’t want cops trying to be constitutional scholars, because there are very different opinions on what the Constitution actually says.
I could not disagree with you more. We will just have to agree to disagree.
One of our first lines of defense against tyrannical laws are our Sheriffs and Police.
Just because a court has said something doesn’t mean that it is the be all, end all.
Supporting an un constitutional law is a violation of their oath.
How can you take an oath and then pick and choose when to obey it?
Is it the police officer job to interpret which laws are constitutional? Or is it the courts. I am fairly certain that people would be upset if judges legislated from the bench...(personal experience ) because it is outside their purview... How is the police going outside their purview any different?
Understand what your saying.
But again, there is that pesky oath thing.
All I can say is that I personally would not want an officer to enforce something that is obviously un constitutional.
Would you?
As with a soldier there comes a time for you to decide: Is this order legal?
Same thing. Sooner or later an officer is going to have to decide if something is wrong and make the right choice.
I have been there. Sometimes the ramifications can be-—painful.
I get where you are coming from. once again, the police are placed in the middle of the crap heap. Enforcing laws they do t make...then getting g grilled on the way they enforce them. Judges and legislators can do what they want... And the cop gets screwed
Yeah
Soon it will be up to the Sheriffs and cops to protect us from our own elected “leaders.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.