OathTakers Dilemma: Obey Sacred Oath…or…Obey unconstitutional “Laws” in Violation of that Oath?

20 May

MackBanner51-940x412Recently, local elected officials and law-enforcement personnel have made public comments relating to their (mis)understanding of their sacred Oath to protect and defend the “Supreme Law of the Land”, the Constitution of the United States, when it clearly conflicts with the private, foreign codes, rules, and regulations that the private corporation (ie. “BAKER COUNTY”, “STATE OF OREGON”) employing them.

These Oath-Takers have sworn themselves into a dilemma. They are told to PRESUME that all corporate codes (“laws”) are constitutional. But they KNOW many are not. They then rely on the opinions of the courts to make their moral and ethical determinations for them. Is this proper and lawful?

But it is clearly THEIR own responsibility to make their OWN determinations. It is pretty clear. The “law” either IS or it ISN'T constitutional ON ITS FACE.

Leo Castillo is well-known to our local conservative and law-abiding community as an outspoken and articulate proponent of our protected Rights, particularly the Second Article of the Bill of Rights.

Leo is, quite naturally, an OATHKEEPER. He hosts a weekly radio show on AM 1490 and 1450 every Sunday evening at 9 pm.  Check out his website and listen to some of his world-class interviews on the archives.

Relevant to the subject of this article, the following is a quote from Leo’s interview with the legendary Sheriff Richard Mack from last March 29.

Sheriff Mack is nationally-known as a Constitutional Sheriff. He is a charter member of the Board of Directors for OathKeepers, and is the President and founder of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association. He tours the country giving seminars on these subjects. He has won a significant case before the US Supreme Court, and knows what he is talking about.

Sheriff Mack resolves this alleged controversy as follows:

Starting at 10 min and 27 secs in:

LEO CASTILLO: [Quoting ordinance]  “It shall be the duty of the Sheriff of _______________ county in Oregon to determine as a matter of internal policy and county concern per ORS 203.035 when any federal, state, or local regulation affecting firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition, that is enforceable within his jurisdiction, violates the second, ninth, tenth, or fourteenth amendments to the Constitution of these United States or Article 1 Sections 27-33 of the Constitution of the State of Oregon as articulated herein.    The Sheriff will use pro bono legal advice when available.”  

“So, in your professional opinion, does the sheriff not indeed have this authority?”

RICHARD MACK:  “He absolutely does. You’ll not see it anywhere in the Constitution or anyplace else that only the courts can interpret the Constitution. As a matter of fact, I’ve evolved away from saying that they [the courts] have the right to interpret the Constitution.  They have the obligation, duty and responsibility to enforce the Constitution just as their Oath of office says.

“So if the Sheriff never studies the intent of the founding fathers in promulgating the Constitution in the first place, specifically the Bill of Rights as you mentioned, in the 2nd,  9th, 10th, amendments, well, who’s supposed to?  In your county, I have to ask, who is supposed to enforce the Constitution?  Who is supposed to defend the Constitution?  If someone takes an Oath, and in God’s name no less, to uphold and defend, protect and preserve the United States Constitution, and then refuses to do it or tries to abdicate the responsibility for the fulfillment of that oath, to a court or judge or some other person, the county attorney or whomever, that person would be guilty of perjury. 

“You can’t take an Oath and then tell somebody else that they are responsible for fulfilling it or keeping it. And so, yes, it is up to the individual who takes the oath.  They must find the interpretation by those who wrote it.  It’s not open to individual interpretation. The Constitution isn’t up for debate. 

“The Constitution was devised, especially the Bill of Rights, to specifically protect the God given rights that we were blessed with when we were born in America. And for a Sheriff to say [that] he can’t do that, or he has no authority, or he can’t get involved, or “you’ll have to find a good lawyer”, or “ I’m busy chasing drug addicts and enforcing the drug war, or writing tickets and serving papers”, that’s a bunch of BS.  The sheriff took the job and promised that he would obey and enforce the constitution of the united states and also as you mentioned, the constitution of Oregon or any other state wherein a sheriff has his job.

“So it is our duty to know and understand the intent of the founders who wrote the constitution and it is our [the sheriffs] job to enforce it and defend it against all enemies both foreign and domestic.  And I will say unequivocally, the greatest enemy of our own constitution and our own freedoms is our own federal government.  Sorry, I wish it wasn’t true, but it is.”

And there you have it. Please comment below.  Jim

1 Comment

Posted by on May 20, 2015 in General


One response to “OathTakers Dilemma: Obey Sacred Oath…or…Obey unconstitutional “Laws” in Violation of that Oath?

  1. Jake

    May 21, 2015 at 6:32 am

    I think that it is absolutely our (We the People) responsibility to understand the interpretation of what the founders wrote and what they meant. I don’t think that it takes a Harvard law graduate or a BAR attorney or judge to decipher the Constitution and the meaning behind it when it is well written, documented, and debated on what those words meant when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was ratified. This isn’t some cryptic code hidden from the peasants.

    If I pledge an oath to support and defend the constitution and uphold the RIGHTS of my fellow Americans (as employers no less if I’m a public servant), then inherent in that oath is the implication that I have a duty to understand what Sheriff Mack refers to. If this is not the case, then why don’t the oaths of office read “I do solemnly swear to defend and uphold the orders of the court and whatever the judge says”. This seems to be the course that our local leaders in Baker County would have us believe is the correct course of action but I just find it lazy,irresponsible, and worthy of a recall.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s