The Oaths That Bind Us
Millions of Americans are asking the same question: will the oaths hold when it matters most?
By Dr. John Petrone
A Question That Cannot Be Dodged
What do oath-takers really uphold? That question is no longer abstract. Millions of Americans are on edge, watching a regime grow more radical by the day, and wondering if the military and government officials who swore an oath to the Constitution will remember what that oath requires.
The Oath We Swore
When I enlisted in the United States Air Force, I raised my right hand and swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That oath was not temporary, not conditional, and not written in disappearing ink. It did not bind me to a commander-in-chief or to a political party. It bound me to the Constitution—and that oath still binds me today.
Article II and the Take Care Clause
Article II, Section 3 requires the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” But faithfully can be twisted. Faithfully in good faith sustains democracy. Faithfully in bad faith corrupts it. If the executive branch enforces laws in bad faith, is blind obedience to that power still loyalty to the oath—or is it betrayal of it?
Who Defines the Enemy?
The Constitution assigns authority with precision. Congress writes the laws and wields impeachment. The President enforces them and commands the armed forces. The Judiciary interprets and restrains abuses. This system was designed to prevent tyranny. But what happens when all three branches fall into the hands of one faction, unwilling to check one another? Who then decides who the “domestic enemy” is? A general? A governor? A journalist? A voice crying out from the minority party?
History’s Dark Lessons
Washington led troops against the Whiskey Rebellion. Hayes sent the Army to crush striking railroad workers in 1877. Hoover ordered the Army to clear World War I veterans from the capital in 1932. In Chicago, 1968, police unleashed violence against antiwar protesters in a political climate shaped by Johnson’s administration. In 1970, the Ohio National Guard, deployed by the governor, opened fire at Kent State, killing four students protesting Nixon’s war in Cambodia. And in 1992, George H.W. Bush invoked the Insurrection Act and sent federal forces into Los Angeles.
Each of these episodes shows the same truth: when the call comes, it is ordinary oath-takers who are ordered to turn on fellow citizens.
The Letter and the Spirit
The oath is not simply about obedience. The letter of the Constitution directs loyalty to lawful authority, but the spirit of the Constitution requires resistance to unlawful orders. And the law itself makes this clear.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) does not command obedience to all orders—it specifies lawful orders. Article 90, Article 91, and Article 92 all require obedience only to “lawful commands.”
The Manual for Courts-Martial removes all doubt: “An order which is unlawful does not confer any duty to obey and may not be obeyed.”
This is not a loophole. It is a legal obligation. A service member who carries out an unlawful order can be prosecuted under the UCMJ. At Nuremberg, the defense of “just following orders” was rejected—and that principle is written into U.S. military law to this day.
When institutions fail, the oath transforms from a chain of command into a test of conscience.
The Real Answer
The oath is to the Constitution itself. Not to one man’s ambitions. Not to a party’s grip on power. Not to propaganda dressed up as patriotism. It is to the rule of law, to the separation of powers, and to the enduring truth that sovereignty rests with We the People.
How We Fight Back
We fight back first by remembering that democracy is not powerless, even in dark times. The people still have tools, and history shows that when citizens stand together, authoritarian movements can be slowed, stopped, and defeated.
We fight back by holding our leaders accountable—at the ballot box, in town halls, and in every space where power must be challenged. We speak out, not just online but in our communities, where courage is contagious. We organize, because no one wins this fight alone. We support honest journalism and independent voices that shine light where corruption breeds in darkness. We demand that our institutions remember their purpose: to serve the people, not the powerful.
And we remind ourselves of something essential: those who swore the oath are not faceless. They are our neighbors, our sons and daughters, our coworkers, our fellow citizens. Most of them know exactly what that oath means. They, too, swore it not to a man, not to a party, but to the Constitution. The louder we speak, the clearer the public will, the harder it becomes for oath-takers to forget what they promised to defend.
The test is coming. Millions of Americans know it. But fear cannot be our guide. Determination must be. Resolve must be. Courage must be. The only question left is whether those who swore the oath will remember what they truly pledged to uphold—and whether we, the people, will hold them to it.
If Drumpf swore the oath at his inauguration then what he is doing now makes him a traitor to the country he swore and oath to protect. He is also acting as an agent for, and supporter of a foreign occupation force in another country that is illegal, and committing genocide on the indigenous inhabitants of that country and that means he is a traitor twice over.
I could go on but surely Americans know all this and yet it is happening, or do they have no idea what he has sworn to be the protector of your country after taking the oath to uphold the constitution. His oath did not give him the right to destroy the USofA, yet that is what he is doing on behalf of a foreign rogue state.
Why does he have satanyahu give speeches to congress so often, what is their plan? Is he getting the US ready to have satanyahu somehow become president of USofA? If that isn't treason I have no idea what is. Something in Washington stinks.
Sending our Military to other cities when there is clearly no need is in violation! The Military headed to arriving in these cities should be accompanied by the AG, Governor, State Representative and Mayor for a tour to assess the need. If no need, the Military should respond to the Administration " Have toured xxx, with all due respect, no current need is warranted here and we are returning to our assigned duty station."