Per a recent posting by Dr. Taitz, one of the military Plaintiffs in her upcoming lawsuit designed to order the President to furnish his vital documentation wrote the following analysis in comparing the two oaths:
There is a huge difference between the military enlisted oath and the officer oath of office. The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows [per this link]:
“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) 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 the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
Officer Oath -
“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ 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 reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
As you can see, the officer does not swear to obey the orders of the President. We only have an obligation to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic (for example, a Presidential Usurper).
Our forefathers were so brilliant to foresee a situation like we find ourselves in now. The officer oath is a safeguard to protect the Constitution against a corrupt elected government. Officers only have an obligation to defend the Constiution. Military officers have a lot of legal clout when it comes to Constitutional matters. The officer oath does not mention following the UCMJ laws as does the enlisted oath.
I have had numerous commenters who do not support questioning the President’s background who seem to suggest that certain Plaintiffs in Dr. Taitz’ proposed legal action may find themselves in a precarious situation with respect to their oaths of military service. Clearly, per the above, at least for the officers involved, the unnamed individual makes an excellent point.
What point is that? Quite simply, just as there are federal civilian officers (e.g.: President, Senator, Representative, Secretary, etc.) who are tasked with the responsibilities and obligations as specifically enumerated within the US Constitution, so, too, are there military officers. These officers are similarly tasked with carrying out their duties per the oath, above (along with their prescribed military branch duties). They must have the lattitude of making decisions for the good of the scope of their responsibilities, whereas enlisted personnel — while certainly no less important — are primarily order-takers, and hence do not have the same jurisdiction over matters as do officers.
Hopefully the above will go far in explaining exactly why numerous military officers have agreed to become Plaintiffs in this upcoming suit.