Oath Takers

by L. Douglas Hogan

  REGULATION NATION

  This land has come to a place where it regulates everything the Constitution protects. The lawmakers and various forms of legislators work night and day to restrict liberties that the Constitution gives you. They see the Constitution as a restriction of their intentions, and they are correct in thinking so. It was designed to keep them away.

  Today’s lawmakers restrict what kind of food you can eat and how much soda you can have. They have written laws infringing your right to keep and bear firearms. They tax your own property and seize your livestock. Virtually every aspect of your life is regulated by an overreaching government. Your job, as an oath taker, is to reject these types of laws. Any law written to violate the rights of another are unconstitutional. Who does the government use to enforce these unconstitutional laws? They use you, the oath taker. The man and woman in uniform. The very person who vowed to uphold the Constitution is the person assigned to undermine it. They come to count on your service to the government to enact their unconstitutional demands. But what if you refuse? What if you can see it for what it is? What if you see political agendas and corruption instead of constitutional parameters? What if every American stopped acting against the Constitution? There are a few questions here and some pretty tough questions to follow. With tough questions come even tougher decisions.

  As a police officer, I swore the oath. Daily I see opportunities that beckon me to enforce the government’s will upon the people. Daily, I must choose which rights are constitutional and which are violations. To make things clear, let me use an example and illustrate how this thought process works for me.

  On a routine day, I see numerous people driving their commute from point A to point B. Daily I see dozens not wearing their seat belt, which the law clearly says must be applied. The dilemma then arises: is it this person’s constitutional right to not have to wear a seat belt? Remember the Constitution provides for individual liberties as long as they don’t violate the liberties of another. The person who is not wearing a seat belt is an adult. His death, in the event of an accident, is not for the government to dictate. It is the driver’s responsibility to protect himself from harm by fastening his seat belt. It in no way violates the rights of another by his/her refusal to wear a seat belt. The government says he/she is supposed to, but your oath is to the Constitution, not to the government. If no person is at risk, there is no need. If the driver is speeding, the officer should Terry stop him, because his duty is to protect others.

  The government has long held the argument that driving is a privilege and not a right. I have a differing view. Under the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, no person shall be deprived of liberty without due process. Within the word liberty, you can find almost no boundaries. LIBERTY does not mean anarchy. Your liberty is your own until it violates the liberty of another, and then it becomes unconstitutional. Within the word LIBERTY is free travel. Because there is no mention of the word travel in the Constitution does not mean it is not your right to travel by horse, train, car, truck, or teleportation at will. The government has found that a silence in the Constitution is a breach in constitutional rights. And where there’s a breach, there’s a means to CONTROL. In 1770, Thomas Jefferson stated the following while appearing in a court case involving civil liberties: “All men are born free and everyone comes into the world with a right to his own person and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the author of nature, because it is necessary for his own sustenance.”

  The government would have you enforce any law where the Constitution is silent. Driving is one such right. The Constitution is silent on driving because there was no such technology at the time. I want to use this as a segue into the Ninth Amendment, which protects rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution:

  The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

  Yet in recent times we have seen administrations create legislation where the Constitution is silent, and regulations to existing laws where the law probably should not exist. They (the government) display signs where your constitutional rights do and do not apply, specifically, roping off areas where your First Amendment right to speech applies and where it does not, as was apparent during the Bureau of Land Management’s move into Clark County, Nevada, early in 2014. Not even a representative government would conduct such acts of attrition, by fear of having to answer to the people; they write ridiculous laws dictating what the people can eat and drink; they (the government) put signs on public land telling the people they cannot stand on the posted property without the possibility of being arrested for trespassing. All of this dereliction against the American citizen while the southern U.S. Border remains unsecured, with about 10,000,000 illegals living among us with driver’s licenses, jobs, health care, and free phones. I say all of this because at the time this chapter was written, our own immigration laws are not being enforced. Immigration control officers are being told to stand down. Men and women sworn to the defense of this country are not keeping to their oath in allowing these people to enter without fear of law. Instead, the focus has shifted to creating legislation against natural-born citizens. We are being tougher on our own law-abiding people than we are active criminality. Taking my son to get a driver’s license proved more difficult than an illegal immigrant. I see illegal’s with driver’s licenses randomly, but don’t understand how it can be when my son has to produce umpteenth documents to prove his residence. The police officer should not be bogged down with cumbersome legislation and gray areas.

  The suits in Washington, D.C., actively neglect our nation’s laws while writing new ones. The highest criminal justice office in the land turns a blind eye to whatever ideology aligns with the administration. This creates a lawless government where fear of accountability is a moot topic. Evidence of criminal activities in the highest offices of the land disappear under subpoena and people refuse to speak before select congressional committees appointed to investigate criminal activities. All the while, the Department of Justice is silent, as if the office is aligned with a political agenda rather than the Constitution of the United States. As a police officer, I have been challenged with directives from political figures to focus on a particular agenda. I am proud to say that upon receiving such orders, I initially dismissed the request to disparage, then after some thought on the matter, I resigned that commission. I have no qualms about submitting a resignation wherever it is due. Foremost, my duties are to my country and the Constitution that governs it, not to the political figures or their agendas. This mind-set should be the norm, not the exception, across the entire spectrum of oath takers, wherever you work, in whatever geographical location, regardless of how seasoned you are. I know that there are certain cultures within the realm of law enforcement, but it’s never too late to change for the better, even if it means abandoning that culture for the cause of righteousness. If we the people cannot stand for something righteous, then we will fall from the grace of the people of the United States. The people we have sworn to protect and serve.

  I can’t even begin to cover everything that is regulated in this country. The Illinois Vehicle Code is over 600 pages of regulations. From what color the various lights can be, to the tinting of the windows, to the distance from the ground to the bumper of your vehicle.

  If you are reading this, I’m guessing you’re interested in politics or you are a person who has taken an oath. I can’t say this enough: your oath is to the Constitution. Don’t let the government fool you into thinking you are their henchman. You have a choice to enforce the regulations of the land. You are not a state or city thug.

  The Constitution is a product of intense debate. A debate that went on for some time in a series of articles known as the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist. The original Constitution did not contain a Bill of Rights, and because of that, there were some who would not sign on to ratify the n
ew Constitution. It wasn’t until the Bill of Rights was added, guaranteeing individual sovereign rights, that the last of the delegates signed the Constitution into law. I say this because you are an American first and foremost. More than that, you are an American that has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution and all its parts, including the Bill of Rights, which provides for the individual citizenry sovereign and inherent rights. The people of America are being regulated to death. Freedom is hemorrhaging out of this country through regulation. You are authorized in the use of officer discretion while on duty. I implore you to act on your oath and make the hard decisions. There may come a time when that decision is more costly than you suspected. At the end of the day you will have maintained your honor. Thomas Jefferson once said, “The boisterous sea of liberty is never without a wave.” I will close this chapter with another Thomas Jefferson quote: “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” Indeed, liberty has its issues, but it’s worth the cost.

  A CLOSE CALL

  I served in the U.S. Marines in the ‘90s. The period I served in was not without incident, but my unit was not assigned to any foreign excursions. A moment that stands out most, in my mind, was the Los Angeles riots. The Rodney King beatings, perpetrated by white L.A. police officers, sparked widespread riots. The case eventually went to federal courts, where the locals were fearing the worst-case scenario. My unit was briefed on what could repeat itself as another Los Angeles riot event that had occurred the previous year. My greatest fear was being sent into a U.S. city with orders to shoot. The whole briefing was surreal. While I can’t recall the information provided or the instruction given, I do recall my only question: “Will we be issued less-than-lethal bullets?” My concern was the use of any method other than lethal. The idea of standing against my own countryman was a dark thing made of nightmares. I can recall the cogs of my mind rotating in a way they were not designed to rotate. The questions couldn’t be placed into anything discernible. I understand security. At the time of this book, my security experience spans twenty years. Looking back, I think we were being asked for more than security. We were talking about angry Americans with guns. Angry Americans destroying civil and state properties, burning homes, looting, etc. If security was the assignment, it was about to turn into something far greater. I’m thankful to report, and history will show, that there were convictions on some of those officers. It was enough to appease the potential for violence and to abate the anger of the city. In the spring of 1993, I did not have to point my weapon at a brother American. But more tough decisions were to come later in my life, nothing so intense, but tough, nonetheless.

  In 2014, a white Ferguson, MO, police officer shot a large black teenage male. The teen died from multiple gunshot wounds. Those are the facts of the case. Months later, Ferguson remains in a state of riot. I am definitely not a fan of civil disorder, nor am I a proponent of martial law. I have to pass kudos along to Governor Jay Nixon for showing great restraint; however, I am obliged to neutralize that with his comment from a five-minute video on Ferguson. His second point stated a “vigorous prosecution must now be pursued.” Is that where we are as a nation? Where a governor promises the vigorous prosecution of an innocent man? We are still innocent until proven guilty, aren’t we? I don’t know the guilt or innocence of either man in this case. But the law does. The law says he is innocent until proven guilty. Those calling for the officer’s termination and/or conviction must wait until the process has run its course. There is still due process, even for the police. No one is convicted or prosecuted without it. Everybody involved in the Ferguson investigation, whether it’s defense or prosecution, are sworn to uphold the laws. They cannot circumvent the system for the appeasement of a few clamorous individuals. The loss of liberty starts with a declaration for a little safety and security.

  CONTEXTITUTION

  The Constitution wasn’t just whipped up by free people for free people. There was a gradual worsening of tyrannical prowess in the kingdom of King George III. Many of the same instances we are seeing today. Long before the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, on July 4th, 1776, there were exhaustive attempts at fixing the tyranny problem on every possible level. I stated, towards the front of this book, that I am not a Constitutional professor. It is for this reason I am including various writings, speeches, quotes, excerpts, and documents to aid in the construction of this work. This work is, after all, a book to the oath taker. This chapter is an attempt to bring context into the Constitution for anybody that’s interested in knowing why it was framed the way it was and how it applies today. Thus, the title of this chapter is a combination of the two words “context” and “Constitution.” What good is it to make my argument without the history to support the context of this work? You swore an oath to defend something worth dying for. Our founders believed this, and those 8,000 American Revolutionaries who gave their lives for liberty certainly believed in the cause. Therefore, to illustrate how desperate the Americans were to resolve the government overreach, I am including Patrick Henry’s speech at the Virginia Convention on March 23, 1775. The context is concern for the loss of further liberties. Henry wanted to raise a militia and set a defense. Other delegates wanted to wait and see if the latest petition to the king would work. The following is Patrick Henry’s “Give me liberty or give me death” speech. A favorite among present-day patriots.

  No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

  Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

  I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Brit
ain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free—if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending—if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained—we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

  They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable—and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.