Category: Oath of Office

Legislation Violation by Congress

There is a general misconception that any legislation passed by congress bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land.  The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any legislation or statute, to be valid, must be in agreement.  In 1803, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, was a U.S. Supreme Court case that established the precedent of judicial review. This judicial review, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, allows the Supreme Court to invalidate or declare unconstitutional actions or laws created by levels of government. The decision of the court also called into question the Judiciary Act of 1789 and if the constitution was superior or not. Given the supremacy clause, the constitution was deemed the supreme law and Marbury’s commission was denied and the case was discharged.

 It is impossible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid.  Stated pointedly in Marbury vs. Madison, “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Branch) 137, 174, 176, (1803).   

Article I, in addition to the 12^th amendment is very clear.  “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.

Article VI: Let’s be clear regarding their OATH and what it truly means.

* “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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So, help me God.”

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, 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.

Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an Executive order 10450, which further defines the law for purposes of enforcement. 

5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office. 

5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law.

5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”. 

The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and (2) confinement or a fine.  

The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311.   SEC. 8. (3, 4, & 5) of Executive Order 10450 specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration … of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.”  Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States. It can only be “altered” by constitutional amendment. Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331 which alters the form of government other than by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.

Violation of Oath of Office and Walker v Members of Congress

In refusing to obey the law of the Constitution and call an Article V Convention when required to do so, the members of Congress not only violated federal income tax law but their oath of office as well. The Constitution requires that all members of Congress must take an oath of office to support the Constitution before assuming office. In order to comply with the Constitution, Congress has enacted federal laws to execute and enforce this constitutional requirement.

Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order which further defines the law for purposes of enforcement. 5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office. 5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law, 5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”. The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.

The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311. One provision of Executive Order 10450 specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311  for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration … of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.” Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States. It can only be “altered” by constitutional amendment. Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331which alters the form of government other by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311. 

Congress has never altered the Article V Convention clause by constitutional amendment. Hence, the original language written in the law by the Framers and its original intent remains undisturbed and intact. That law specifies a convention call is peremptory on Congress when the states have applied for a convention call and uses the word “shall” to state this. The states have applied. When members of Congress disobey the law of the Constitution and refuse to issue a call for an Article V Convention when peremptorily required to do so by that law, they have asserted a veto power when none exists nor was ever intended to exist in that law. This veto alters the form of our government by removing one of the methods of amendment proposal the law of the Constitution creates. Such alteration without amendment is a criminal violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 and 18 U.S.C. 1918.

In addition, the members of Congress committed a second criminal violation of their oaths of office regarding an Article V Convention call. 5 U.S.C. 7311 clearly specifies it is a criminal violation for any member of Congress to advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government. The definition of the word “advocate” is to: “defend by argument before a tribunal or the public: support or recommend publicly.” 

The single intent of the federal lawsuit Walker v Members of Congress (a public record) was to compel Congress to obey the law of the Constitution and call an Article V Convention as peremptorily required by that law, the original intent of which has never altered by constitutional amendment. The lawsuit was brought because Congress has refused to obey the law of the Constitution. Such refusal obviously establishes the objective of the members of Congress to overthrow our form of government by establishing they (the members of Congress) can disobey the law of the Constitution and thus overthrow our constitutional form of government.

The word “peremptory” precludes any objection whatsoever by members of Congress to refuse to call an Article V Convention. This peremptory preclusion certainly includes joining a lawsuit to oppose obeying the law of the Constitution and it may be vetoed by members of Congress. That act not only violates the law of the Constitution but 5 U.S.C. 7311 as well. When the members of Congress joined to oppose Walker v Members of Congress their opposition became part of the court record and therefore a matter of public record. Thus, regardless of whatever arguments for such opposition were presented by their legal counsel to justify their opposition, the criminal violation of the oath of office occurred because the members of Congress joined the lawsuit to publicly declare their opposition to obeying the law of the Constitution. Comments

A Quick Summation Of The Walker Lawsuits

A summation absent any references of the two Walker lawsuits, Walker v. United States and Walker v. Members of Congress is as follows:

A federal district court in Seattle ruled in Walker v. United States (2000) that the Congress could disobey the law of the Constitution under the political question doctrine. The district court ruled the plaintiff had no standing to sue and therefore the court had no jurisdiction to issue a ruling in the suit. Nevertheless, court issued its political question doctrine ruling, which had never been issued by any court previously regarding the convention call based on an advisory opinion issued by the Supreme Court. Advisory opinions have no force or weight of law. This advisory opinion also stated that any decisions based on its recommendations would also be advisory. Thus, the original intent of the Constitution, that Congress was peremptorily required to call a convention, remain untouched.

In Walker v. Members of Congress (2004), the members of Congress voluntarily and deliberately joined a federal lawsuit to oppose obeying the law of the Constitution. The attorney of record provided written proof in open public court that as a matter of public record that each member of Congress individually made this decision. It is against federal criminal law for any member of Congress to join a federal lawsuit to advocate such action or to advocate such a position. 

The attorneys of record for the members of Congress based their actions in the Walker v. Members of Congress lawsuit on an advisory opinion issued by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court, in that advisory opinion, stated that decision, and any subsequent decisions related to the amendatory process, was given “wholly without constitutional authority” meaning the advisory opinion on which the attorneys of record based their actions had no force or weight of law whatsoever thus leaving the peremptory original intent of the Constitution intact.

As a result of these actions by the member of Congress’ attorney of record, federal law required the Attorney General of the United States write for the public record, a report to Congress explaining the reasons why the law of the Constitution can be disobeyed by members of Congress, who made this decision and when it was made. The public report, by law, was required to be submitted to Congress before final arguments in the appeal process of Walker v. Members of Congress were concluded thus giving their attorneys the opportunity to “change their mind” if so instructed by their clients, the members of Congress. The members did not so instruct their attorney of record.

Walker v. Members of Congress was appealed to the Supreme Court. Federal law requires that all facts and law submitted in writs of certiorari by the plaintiff (appellant) to the Supreme Court must either be (1) waived, meaning the defendant (appellee) in the lawsuit admits as a matter of fact and law that the statements made by the plaintiff are true and correct or (2) opposed, in which case federal law requires the defendant give the reasons why the alleged facts and law are not true and correct. 

The attorney of record for the members of Congress, the Solicitor General of the United States acting in his official capacity, waived challenging the facts and law presented by the plaintiff in the Walker v. Members of Congress writ of certiorari. The writ of certiorari is public record. The members of Congress (acting through their attorney of record) therefore admitted in open court for the public record that the following is true and correct as a matter of fact and law: 

(1) that under Article V of the United States Constitution, Congress is required to call an Article V Convention if two-thirds of the state legislatures apply for one;

(2) that the Article V Convention call is based on a numeric count of applying states;

(3) that all 50 states have submitted 567 applications for such a convention;

(4) that an Article V Convention call is peremptory on Congress;

(5) that the political subject matter of an amendment application is irrelevant and does not effect Congress’ obligation to call an Article V Convention;

(6) that the refusal of the members of Congress to obey the law of the Constitution and immediately call a convention is a violation of their oath of office as well as a violation of federal criminal law and;

(7) that by joining a lawsuit to advocate in open public court they can ignore, veto, disobey or otherwise thwart a convention call, the members of Congress violated federal criminal law.

Security Requirements for Government Employment

April 27, 1953

WHEREAS the interests of the national security require that all persons privileged to be employed in the departments and agencies of the Government, shall be reliable, trustworthy, of good conduct and character, and of complete and unswerving loyalty to the United States; and

WHEREAS the American tradition that all persons should receive fair, impartial, and equitable treatment at the hands of the Government requires that all persons seeking the privilege of employment or privileged to be employed in the departments and agencies of the Government be adjudged by mutually consistent and no less than minimum standards and procedures among the departments and agencies governing the employment and retention in employment of persons in the Federal service:

NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and statutes of the United States, including section 1753 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (5 U.S.C. 631); the Civil Service Act of 1883 (22 Stat. 403; 5 U.S.C. 632, et seq.); section 9A of the act of August 2, 1939, 53 Stat. 1148 (5 U.S.C. 118 j); and the act of August 26, 1950, 64 Stat. 476 (5 U.S.C. 22-1, et seq.), and as President of the United States, and deeming such action necessary in the best interests of the national security, it is hereby ordered as follows:

SECTION 1. In addition to the departments and agencies specified In the said act of August 26, 1950, and Executive Order No. 10237 of April 26, 1951, the provisions of that act shall apply to all other departments and agencies of the Government.

SEC 2. The head of each department and agency of the Government shall be responsible for establishing and maintaining within his department or agency an effective program to insure that the employment and retention in employment of any civilian officer or employee within the department or agency is clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.

SEC. 3. (a) The appointment of each civilian officer or employee in any department or agency of the Government shall be made subject to investigation. The scope of the investigation shall be determined in the first instance according to the degree of adverse effect the occupant of the position sought to be filled could bring about, by virtue of the nature of the position, on the national security, but in no event shall the investigation include less than a national agency check i including a check of the fingerprint files of the Federal Bureau of Investigation), and written inquiries to appropriate local law-enforcement agencies, former employers and supervisors, references, and schools attended by the person under investigation: Provided, that upon request of the head of the department or agency concerned, the Civil Service Commission may, in its discretion, authorize such less investigation as may meet the requirements of the national security with respect to per-diem, intermittent, temporary, or seasonal employees, or aliens employed outside the United States. Should there develop at any stage of investigation information indicating that the employment of any such person may not be clearly consistent with the interests of the national security, there shall be conducted with respect to such person a full field investigation, or such less investigation as shall be sufficient to enable the head of the department or agency concerned to determine whether retention of such person is clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.

(b) The head of any department or agency shall designate, or cause to be designated, any position within his department or agency the occupant of which could bring about, by virtue of the nature of the position, a material adverse effect on the national security as a sensitive position. Any position so designated shall be filled or occupied only by a person with respect to whom a full field investigation has been conducted: Provided, that a person occupying a sensitive position at the time it is designated as such may continue to occupy such position pending the completion of a full field investigation, subject to the other provisions of this order:

And provided further, that in case of emergency a sensitive position may be filled for a limited period by a person with respect to whom a full field pre-appointment investigation has not been completed if the head of the department or agency concerned finds that such action is necessary in the national interest, which finding shall be made a part of the records of such department or agency.

SEC. 4. The head of each department and agency shall review, or cause to be reviewed, the cases of all civilian officers and employees with respect to whom there has been conducted a full field investigation under Executive Order No. 9835 of March 21, 1947, and, after such further investigation as may be appropriate, shall re-adjudicate, or cause to be re-adjudicated, in accordance with the said act of August 26, 1950, such of those cases as have not been adjudicated under a security standard commensurate with that established under this order.

SEC. 5. Whenever there is developed or received by any department or agency information indicating that the retention in employment of any officer or employee of the Government may not be clearly consistent with the interests of the national security, such information shall be forwarded to the head of the employing department or agency or his representative, who, after such investigation as may be appropriate, shall review, or cause to be reviewed, and, where necessary, re-adjudicate, or cause to be re-adjudicated, in accordance with the raid act of August 26, 1950, the case of such officer or employee.

SEC. 6. Should there develop at any stage of investigation information indicating that the employment of any officer or employee of the Government may not be clearly consistent with the interests of the national security, the head of the department or agency concerned or his representative shall immediately suspend the employment of the person involved if he deems such suspension necessary in the interests of the national security and, following such investigation and review as he deems necessary, the head of the department or agency concerned shall terminate the employment of such suspended officer or employee whenever he shall determine such termination necessary or advisable in the interests of the national security, in accordance with the said act of August 26, 1950.

SEC. 7. Any person whose employment is suspended or terminated under the authority granted to heads of departments and agencies by or in accordance with the said act of August 26, 1950, or pursuant to the said Executive Order No. 9835 or any other security or loyalty program relating to officers or employees of the Government, shall not be reinstated or restored to duty or reemployed in the same department or agency and shall not be reemployed in any other department or agency, unless the head of the department or agency concerned finds that such reinstatement, restoration, or reemployment is clearly consistent with the interests of the national security, which finding shall be made a part of the records of such department or agency: Provided, that no person whose employment has been terminated under such authority thereafter may be employed by any other department or agency except after a determination by the Civil Service Commission that such person is eligible for such employment.

SEC. 8. (a) The investigations conducted pursuant to this order shall be designed to develop information as to whether the employment or retention in employment in the Federal service of the person being investigated is clearly consistent with the interests of the national security. Such information shall relate, but shall not be limited, to the following:

(1) Depending on the relation of the Government employment to the national security:

(i) Any behavior, activities, or associations which tend to show that the individual is not reliable or trustworthy.

(ii) Any deliberate misrepresentations, falsifications, or omissions of material facts.

(iii) Any criminal, infamous, dishonest, immoral, or notoriously disgraceful conduct, habitual use of intoxicants to excess, drug addiction, or sexual perversion.

(iv) An adjudication of insanity, or treatment for serious mental or neurological disorder without satisfactory evidence of cure.

(v) Any facts which furnish reason to believe that the individual may be subjected to coercion, influence, or pressure which may cause him to act contrary to the best interests of the national security.

(2) Commission of any act of sabotage, espionage, treason, or sedition, or attempts thereat or preparation therefor, or conspiring with, or aiding or abetting, another to commit or attempt to commit any act of sabotage, espionage, treason, or sedition.

(3) Establishing or continuing a sympathetic association with a saboteur, spy, traitor, seditionist, anarchist, or revolutionist, or with an espionage or other secret agent or representative of a foreign nation, or any representative of a foreign nation whose interests may be inimical to the interests of the United States, or with any person who advocates the use of force or violence to overthrow the government of the United States or the alteration of the form of government of the United States by unconstitutional means.

(4) Advocacy of use of force or violence to overthrow the government of the United States, or of the alteration of the form of government of the United States by unconstitutional means.

(5) Membership in, or affiliation or sympathetic association with, any foreign or domestic organization, association, movement, group, or combination of persons which is totalitarian, Fascist, Communist, or subversive, or which has adopted, or shows, a policy of advocating or approving the commission of acts of force or violence to deny other persons their rights under the Constitution of the United States, or which seeks to alter the form of government of the United States by unconstitutional means.

(6) Intentional, unauthorized disclosure to any person of security information, or of other information disclosure of which is prohibited by law, or willful violation or disregard of security regulations.

(7) Performing or attempting to perform his duties, or otherwise acting, so as to serve the interests of another government in preference to the interests of the United States.

(b) The investigation of persons entering or employed in the competitive service shall primarily be the responsibility of the Civil Service Commission, except in cases in which the head of a department or agency assumes that responsibility pursuant to law or by agreement with the Commission. The Commission shall furnish a full investigative report to the department or agency concerned.

(c) The investigation of persons (including consultants, however employed), entering employment of, or employed by, the Government other than in the competitive service shall primarily be the responsibility of the employing department or agency. Departments and agencies without investigative facilities may use the investigative facilities of the Civil Service Commission, and other departments and agencies may use such facilities under agreement with the Commission.

(d) There shall be referred promptly to the Federal Bureau of Investigation all investigations being conducted by any other agencies which develop information indicating that an individual may have been subjected to coercion, influence, or pressure to act contrary to the interests of the national security, or information relating to any of the matters described in subdivisions (2) through (7) of subsection (a) of this section. In cases so referred to it, the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall make a full field investigation.

SEC. 9. (a) There shall be established and maintained in the Civil Service Commission a security-investigations index covering all persons as to whom security investigations have been conducted by any department or agency of the Government under this order. The central index established and maintained by the Commission under Executive Order No. 9835 of March 21, 1947, shall be made a part of the security-investigations index. The security-investigations index shall contain the name of each person investigated, adequate identifying information concerning each such person, and a reference to each department and agency which has conducted an investigation concerning the person involved or has suspended or terminated the employment of such person under the authority granted to heads of departments and agencies by or in accordance with the said act of August 26, 1950.

(b) The heads of all departments and agencies shall furnish promptly to the Civil Service Commission information appropriate for the establishment and maintenance of the security-investigations index.

(c) The reports and other investigative material and information developed

by investigations conducted pursuant to any statute, order, or program described in section 7 of this order shall remain the property of the investigative agencies conducting the investigations, but may, subject to considerations of the national security, be retained by the department or agency concerned. Such reports and other investigative material and information shall be maintained in confidence, and no access shall be given thereto except, with the consent of the investigative agency concerned, to other departments and agencies conducting security programs under the authority granted by or in accordance with the said act of August 26, 1950, as may be required for the efficient conduct of Government business.

SEC 10. Nothing in this order shall be construed as eliminating or modifying in any way the requirement for any investigation or any determination as to security which may be required by law.

SEC 11. On and after the effective date of this order the Loyalty Review Board established by Executive Order No. 9835 of March 21, 1947, shall not accept agency findings for review, upon appeal or otherwise. Appeals pending before the Loyalty Review Board on such date shall be heard to final determination in accordance with the provisions of the said Executive Order No. 9835, as amended. Agency determinations favorable to the officer or employee concerned pending before the Loyalty Review Board on such date shall be acted upon by such Board, and whenever the Board is not in agreement with such favorable determination the case shall be remanded to the department or agency concerned for determination in accordance with the standards and procedures established pursuant to this order. Cases pending before the regional loyalty boards of the Civil Service Commission on which hearings have not been initiated on such date shall be referred to the department or agency concerned. Cases being heard by regional loyalty boards on such date shall be heard to conclusion, and the determination of the board shall be forwarded to the head of the department or agency concerned: Provided, that if no specific department or agency is involved, the case shall be dismissed without prejudice to the applicant. Investigations pending in the Federal Bureau of Investigation or the Civil Service Commission on such date shall be completed, and the reports thereon shall be made to the appropriate department or agency.

SEC. 12. Executive Order No. 9835 of March 21, 1947, as amended, is hereby revoked. For the purposes described in section 11 hereof the Loyalty Review Board and the regional loyalty boards of the Civil Service Commission shall continue to exist and function for a period of one hundred and twenty days from the effective date of this order, and the Department of Justice shall continue to furnish the information described in paragraph 3 of Part III of the said Executive Order No. 9835, but directly to the head of each department and agency.

SEC. 13. The Attorney General is requested to render to the heads of departments and agencies such advice as may be requisite to enable them to establish and maintain an appropriate employee security program.

SEC. 14. (a) The Civil Service Commission, with the continuing advice and collaboration of representatives of such departments and agencies as the National Security Council may designate, shall make a continuing study of the manner in which this order is being implemented by the departments and agencies of the Government for the purpose of determining:

(1) Deficiencies in the department and agency security programs established under this order which are inconsistent with the interests of, or directly or indirectly weaken, the national security.

(2) Tendencies in such programs to deny to individual employees’ fair, impartial, and equitable treatment at the hands of the Government, or rights under the Constitution and laws of the United States or this order.

Information affecting any department or agency developed or received during the course of such continuing study shall be furnished immediately to the head of the department or agency concerned. The Civil Service Commission shall report to the National Security Council, at least semiannually, on the results of such study, and shall recommend means to correct any such deficiencies or tendencies.

(b) All departments and agencies of the Government are directed to cooperate with the Civil Service Commission to facilitate the accomplishment of the responsibilities assigned to it by subsection (a) of this section.

SEC. 15. This order shall become effective thirty days after the date hereof.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER

THE WHITE HOUSE,

April 27, 1953.

In 2020 the election in GA was an illegal election based on a Judges approval of rule changes to voting requirements. Said violators should have been charged with the federal statute 5 U.S.C. 7311 for alteration of the form of government without an amendment.

“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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

This is the OATH OF OFFICE, but there is a lot more to it that this simple statement when verbally taking the oath.

There are four (4) parts to regarding the oath, 5 U.S.C. 3331 is the actual verbal oath.   5 U.S.C. 3333 requires participants taking the oath to sign an affidavit that they will not violate that oath during their tenure as defined by the third part 5 U.S.C. 7311 which makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of the oath of office) for anyone to “advocate the overthrow of our constitution form of government”.

Further, Executive Order 10450 defines the word “ADVOCATE” supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to ADVOCATE “the alteration of the form of the government of the United states by Unconstitutional means.” Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331 which alters the form of government other by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311. 

Read that bold italic type again.  Do you understand that statement?  This includes the following (Article VI P:2) This Constitution, and the laws of the United States…shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. 

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, 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

In the federal lawsuit Walker v Members of Congress (a public record) the single intent was to compel Congress to obey the law of the Constitution and call an Article V Convention as peremptorily required by that law, the original intent of which has never altered by constitutional amendment. The lawsuit was brought because Congress has refused to obey the law of the Constitution. Such refusal obviously establishes the objective of the members of Congress to overthrow our form of government by establishing they (the members of Congress) can disobey the law of the Constitution and thus overthrow our constitutional form of government.

Therefore, by allowing a Judge to allow or approve or even to hear the case to allow changes to the voting rules and processes violates the states constitution and Article I of the US Constitution and said Judges and all who fail to stop said violation should be charged for violation of their oath of office.  The case below states it plainly. 

It is impossible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid.  Stated pointedly in Marbury vs. Madison, “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Branch) 137, 174, 176, (1803).   

I WANT TO BE QUESTIONED

Are we all convinced that there is no hope.  The system is rigged.  I have better hopes for the American voter, but said voter needs to be active.  Not physically but mentally.  The populist needs to get educated on the CONSTITUTION.  They need to fully understand it and hold our elected representative to account for their miss deeds.   How do you hold them accountable for such if you are unaware of their violations!  Congresses own voting records on current and past legislation deems them unfit to serve.  This is not my opinion but in written form in the OATH OF OFFICE.  If everyone out they’re fully understood Article I, the 12^th amendment and article VI, the Oath of Office and subsequent codes, everyone would be shocked at the violations congress makes.  (Read my OPED post for a good understand of the Oath of Office and the SCOTUS 1803 Marbury v. Madison).    I know congress will not hold themselves accountable as that would be going against the members of their club.  Both sides of the isle are to blame.  Our only resolution is through our VOTE.  Vote based on their INTEGRITY, THERE OATH OF OFFICE, and be dammed regarding legislation.  If we vote OUT violators of THE OATH OF OFFICE, and install representatives with integrity to hold to the constitution and its articles we may have a chance.  If not, I feel we are doomed.

Once you give up you values, integrity and morals, 

everything is easy

The Constitution requires that all members of Congress must take an oath of office to support the Constitution before assuming office. In order to comply with the Constitution, Congress has enacted federal laws to execute and enforce this constitutional requirement.

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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order which further defines the law for purposes of enforcement. 5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office. 5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law, 5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”. The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath office described in 5  U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.

The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311. One provision of Executive Order 10450 specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311  for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration … of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.” Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States. It can only be “altered” by constitutional amendment. Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331which alters the form of government other by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311. 

Congress has never altered the Article V Convention clause by constitutional amendment. Hence, the original language written in the law by the Framers and its original intent remains undisturbed and intact. That law specifies a convention call is peremptory on Congress when the states have applied for a convention call and uses the word “shall” to state this. The states have applied. When members of Congress disobey the law of the Constitution and refuse to issue a call for an Article V Convention when peremptorily required to do so by that law, they have asserted a veto power when none exists nor was ever intended to exist in that law. This veto alters the form of our government by removing one of the methods of amendment proposal the law of the Constitution creates. Such alteration without an amendment is a criminal violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 and 18 U.S.C. 1918.

In addition, the members of Congress committed a second criminal violation of their oaths of office regarding an Article V Convention call. 5 U.S.C. 7311 clearly specifies it is a criminal violation for any member of Congress to advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government. The definition of the word “advocate” is to: “defend by argument before a tribunal or the public: support or recommend publicly.” 

The single intent of the federal lawsuit Walker V. Members of Congress (a public record) was to compel Congress to obey the law of the Constitution and call an Article V Convention as peremptorily required by that law, the original intent of which has never altered by constitutional amendment. The lawsuit was brought because Congress has refused to obey the law of the Constitution. Such refusal obviously establishes the objective of the members of Congress to overthrow our form of government by establishing they (the members of Congress) can disobey the law of the Constitution and thus overthrow our constitutional form of government.

The word “peremptory” precludes any objection whatsoever by members of Congress to refuse to call an Article V Convention. This peremptory preclusion certainly includes joining a lawsuit to oppose obeying the law of the Constitution and it may be vetoed by members of Congress. That act not only violates the law of the Constitution but 5 U.S.C. 7311 as well. When the members of Congress joined to oppose Walker v Members of Congress their opposition became part of the court record and therefore a matter of public record. Thus, regardless of whatever arguments for such opposition were presented by their legal counsel to justify their opposition, the criminal violation of the oath of office occurred because the members of Congress joined the lawsuit to publicly declare their opposition to obeying the law of the Constitution. Comments

of

The Constitution

The Republic

and

The Rule of Law

When speaking, debating or discussing the Constitution, the most obvious discussion is regarding the Bill of Rights.  The first amendment is being attacked and they trying to take our firearms away.  These seem to be the focus, and are important issues, but are not the real issue regarding the Constitution.  Article I, Article 5 and the 12^thamendment are what is at stake.

Any individual with any knowledge of the Constitution can see that the January example in congress, regarding the electoral college certification, was a total violation of the Constitution.  The absence of DUE PROCESS was clearly evident.  The political class in Washington that debated and voted not to accept the electoral college votes contesting the election results was a sedition act.  In the 2016 there were more democrats that debated and voted “NO” on accepting the electoral college votes for Trump than in this election for Biden.  Now you are a traitor because you exercised not only your constitutional right, but adhering to your OATH OF OFFICE.   Questioning the presidential election results is now an indication of being a traitor, inciting sedition and you are labeled a racist or even better a white supremacist.

There is a general misconception that any legislation passed by congress bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land.  The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any legislation or statute, to be valid, must be in agreement.  It is impossible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid.  Stated pointedly in Marbury vs. Madison, “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Branch) 137, 174, 176, (1803).   

President Trumps administration made the monumental mistake by not focusing on the true issue regarding the election.  FRAUD was not the issue.    The premise that there was corruption, was not the issue.  Even though those did occur, the issue we as Americans, citizens, politicians, the media, and the press should be stressing to the American people is that the Constitution was violated, and therefore it was an unconstitutional election.  Article I, in addition to the 12^th amendment is very clear.  “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.

Governors, Secretary of States, and Judges cannot invoke rules regarding election laws and or processes.  The court system has no jurisdiction, unless as in this case, the constitution was violated.  No matter what the circumstance, even a pandemic, the constitution and its rights do not get tossed aside and voided.  

Every Governor, state legislator, judge and member of the house and senate took the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.   That does not just mean an armed overthrow, but the violation of this document by so called legal means.   If they are not held to account for that oath, then there is no rule of law.    

The constitution language is short and clear. It further has safety measures built into it, so there would not be a one stop solution or dictatorial decision.  Prior to the last election several legal actions were taken and political actions not taken.  Let’s take two states in question from the last election.

• Legal challenges were made in both GA & PA through the courts to have the rules that were instituted outside of the state legislator be disallowed.
  • GA sued but was deemed too late to enforce the disallowance of the rules as it would disenfranchised voters that already received mail in ballots.
  • PA sued and it went to the SCOTUS and Justice Roberts felt it was a political issue and not a legal one and did not take of the case.   That decision should have been the eye opener for all politicians.  It is a political matter, not a legal matter.

Therefore, it is up to the State Legislator of that state, not the courts, to NOT accept the election results due to the violation of the state’s constitution.  Governors do not have the authority to certify the electoral votes, even though they approved the implementation of the new rules outside of the legislator.  It is the responsibility of the State Legislator to certify the electoral votes.  It is up to them to make sure the election laws have been followed and the state constitution has been adhered to and not violated.  They not only have the obligation, but their duty through the OATH OF OFFICE* is to administer these principles.   If they find there is a violation they must act appropriately to either fix the issue or void those votes that violated the rules that were not instituted by the legislator.  In the case of GA and PA those votes that violated the rules NOT set forth by the legislator should be null and void.  Judges have no LEGAL authority to override the constitution.

Last, if the above FAILS.  When each states Electoral College Votes are due for certification by the house and senate, it is up to the house and senate to accept or reject the states Electoral College Votes and both houses are allowed to debate said objection and then vote to certify or not certify.  Congress, both house and senate, can deny/acceptance those electoral votes.  This has always been just a formality, but the process is there for when there is illegality, as this was the case.   If they feel a state has violated the constitution and its laws, no matter how trivial, it is the duty of the congress to deny those Electoral College Votes based on their oath of office to protect the constitution and the rule of law.  If a state violated their own constitution regarding election laws, it violates Article I and the 12^th amendment of the constitution.  There is a realization that each party does not want to deny their states if it swings in their favor, but by doing so, they have violated their oath of office both in regards to their own integrity and the integrity of the constitution.  The constitution does not have a party affiliation and without honest and fair elections there is no Republic.   Everyone in congress says for the good and benefit of the country we need to certify the Electoral College Votes, but in doing so they have violated their oath of office to uphold the constitution.   This Oath of Office violation says that the document does not matter.  This is detrimental to the country.  The fear of reprisal, threats of unrest and riots must not be a consideration.   When states violate their own constitution and election laws there needs to be a price to pay and as those actions and who took them must be held accountable.   The courts are not the last resort, the State and Congress is and must act on their OATH.   If those votes were denied by congress and the 270 electoral votes were not met then the house elects the president with a single vote from each state.  That is the rule of law regarding the constitution in article I and the 12^th amendment.  It is there for this specific reason.  This should not be about politics or worries what will happen to the country if either side is affected, the truth and rule of law should be the standard and adhered to, no matter what the price is.   If you follow the constitution and your oath of office it will always work to the countries benefit.  

There are a few, but both parties are only concerned about their power, the next election, and be dammed about their oath of office and the constitution.  The vast majority work for their own self-interest.   The constitution is no longer the LAW OF THE LAND but a set of guidelines only to violated and their leisure.

As one of the most egregious spectacles to happen in the house was the recent passing of HR-1 by the house, and is now in the senate.  This bill is a complete violation of Article I and should have never been voted on.  By doing so they have violated their OATH OF OFFICE.  Let’s be clear regarding their OATH and what it truly means.

* “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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So, help me God.”

It is apparent that the section of the oath that seems almost daily violated by politicians is “I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without reservation or purpose of evasion;”        

The congress as a whole, along with the executive branch, has been knowingly presenting legislation that is constructed to change the constitution and then relying on legal challenges to make it to supreme court for final disposition.  You cannot change the constitution through legislation.  If must be accomplished through the amendment process.  This is a direct violation of their oath no matter what the lawyeristic maneuver of passing legislation as constitutional and waiting for a SCOTUS challenge.  Below is the most detailed listing of codes covering the subject of congressional oath and penalties for said violations.

Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order 10450, which further defines the law for purposes of enforcement. 5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office. 5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law, 5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”. The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.  

The definition of “advocate” is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C. 7311. One provision of Executive Order 10450 specifies it is a violation of 5 U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking the oath of office to advocate “the alteration … of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.”  Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States. It can only be “altered” by constitutional amendment. Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331 which alters the form of government other by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311. 

The question is, “why do the American people allow their representatives to break oath of office (a federal crime) and not hold them accountable?  Easy, they do not know what the oath is and its importance or even understand the simple basics of the constitution.  This should be a non-partisan subject simply due to the fact this has been going on for long decades and both parties are guilty of violating their OATH and the law.  Anyone that is paying attention has watched a slow and steady deterioration of personal freedoms, and it’s about to reach a tipping point where those hard-fought rights through blood and treasure become meaningless.

Simple said, it doesn’t take a genius to see we’re traveling at breakneck speed down a road towards tyranny. The scales could be tipped back somewhat if the public voiced expectations that the oath be taken seriously.   Look at each politician record of voting.  Every house democrat that voted for HR1 should be called out for the violation of their OATH and not be re-elected.  Every member of congress that voted to allow the electoral votes of the 6 states in the last election, violated their oath as Article I, section 4 was violated when the states violated their own constitutions and should not be re-elected.  The House and Senate should have not allowed those electoral votes as they were ILLEGAL gotten.  This ELECTION should have gone to the house.  

How can Governors, secretary of states, the house and senate members look themselves in the mirror and not see that Article I was violated.  All should see that it was, and not seeing it means they have no business being in public office.  If they do know the violation and refuse to denounce the violation of the constitution and accept the electoral votes, then they are complicit and in violation of their OATH OF OFFICE.

The vast majority are unaware or do not even care about the constitution at all unless it will advance their agenda.  I can guarantee the vast majority have never read the federals papers, common sense or even the declaration.   It’s about power, all power!  If one is not held accountable for THEIR OATH and there are no repercussions for the violation, then what is to keep them from continued violation to keep power.  Frederic Bastiat said it best.  

“Plunder will only stop when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.”*

*FREDERIC BASTIAT “THE LAW” Est. 1848

IE., crime will continue if there is no punishment for said crime as it is easier than for you to have to labor.

“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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So, help me God.”

It seems to me that congress does not have any issues with their oath, but they should.  Maybe they just don’t know what the oath means.  They seem to violate it with impunity.  It’s sad to see Nancy state that the President violated his oath when members of congress blatantly violated their OATH during the electoral count.  She and all of congress did (except those few republicans that voted not the accept the electoral votes) when they accepted the electoral college totals.  I can justify that statement very easily.

Let us just speak about three states, Arizona, Georgia and Pennsylvania.  There has been NO DOUBT (there has been not one denial that the states violated their own constitutions) that those three states had the Secretaries of State and the Governors allowed rules and process changes to be instituted without going through their STATE LEGISLATORS.  I pray they knew it was a violation of their own constitutions.  If not, they have no business being in their positions.  Incompetence in not an excuse in public office! Pressure from groups, using the victim mentality of voter suppression and the pandemic, to push mail in ballets, harvesting, no ID required, and lacked signature verification.    Any rule and process that is created and implemented, if the state legislator did not write it and approve it, it’s ILLEGAL legislation.  

The constitution has safety measures built into it, so there would not be a one stop solution.

• The first step is legal challenges.  You go to court and have the rules disallowed.
  • GA sued but was deemed too late to enforce the disallowance of the rules as it would disenfranchised voters that already received mail in ballots.
  • PA sued and it went to the SCOTUS and Justice Roberts felt it was a political issue and not a legal one and did not take of the case. 
• The second step is for the Governor to NOT accept the election results due to the violation of the state’s constitution.  That is a hard-pressed issue since he allowed the new rules to go through.  But if he lived up to his oath, he would admit the mistake and not allow the certification.  All six states Governors violated their oaths.
• The last step is for the House and Senate to look at the states violation of their constitutions and understand that by doing so have violated Article II and the 12^th amendment. 

If each member of congress believes in the constitution, then acceptance of those electoral votes is a violation of their OATH OF OFFICE.  

PERIOD!!!!!!

How can Governors, secretary of states, the house and senate members look themselves in the mirror and not see that Article II was violated.  All should see that it was, and not seeing it means they have no business being in public office.  If they do know the violation and refuse to denounce the violation of the constitution and accept the electoral votes, then they are complicit and in violation of their OATH OF OFFICE.

Honesty, I don’t think the vast majority even care about the constitution at all unless it advanced their agenda.  I can guarantee the vast majority have never read the federals papers, common sense or even the declaration.   It’s about power, all power!  If one is not held accountable for THEIR OATH and there is not any repercussion for the violation, then what is to keep them from continued violation to keep power.  It is as simple as that.  

Plunder will only stop when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.  IE., Crime will continue if there is no punishment for said crime as it is easier that your LABOR. *

*FREDERIC BASTIAT “THE LAW”  In the Year 1848