Words have meaning. And we should mean what we say. And honor what we say we will do. And at the same time, we need to let others say what they mean. That can present a bit of a conundrum sometimes.

Ronald Reagan used to tell the joke about the American and the Soviet talking about freedom. The American noted that he was free to walk into the White House and tell the President he was doing a lousy job. The Soviet responded that he was equally free, he could walk into the Kremlin and tell the Chairman that the US President was doing a lousy job.

Humorous. But in some quarters it’s starting to feel this is no longer quite true.

Last week a friend of mine, who gave some 40 years of service to this country, and while doing so traveled to some rather unsavory places and placed his life on the line more than once (with great good humor I might add), was accused of violating his oath of office. Hmmm…

About that oath. As another friend reminded us, the oath that we all take has us swearing allegiance to the Constitution. Not to some king or general, not to Der Fuhrer, not to Caesar. Our allegiance is to the Constitution and the ideas it embodies.

And, interestingly, it’s open-ended. There is no easy way to back out of it. I suppose one might move overseas and become a citizen of some other country. That still would be breaking your word. So, my friend, who is well and truly retired, is still bound by his oath. More to the point, he still feels bound by that oath; not because anyone is listening, but that’s the point of an oath, isn’t it?

Now, to break the oath, is to work to undermine the Constitution. Which really is to be an enemy of the nation.

So, what did he do? Did he stand up and denounce the nation? No. Did he call for the overthrow of the sitting government? No. Did he suggest that violence ought to be done against this or that building or this or that group Americans? No.

As I recall, what he said was something to the extent that he wanted equal justice for all, to include the folks who have been held since last year for the events on Capitol Hill on January 6th, 2021. Some of those folks, as has been well documented, have been held in solitary confinement without being charged for roughly a year. That would seem to be a bit irregular, at least when placed opposite a straightforward reading of the 5th and 6th amendments. Which was his point.

I suppose you can make the argument that an attempt to disrupt the effort of the government, or even one branch of the government, to sit and do its job is insurrection.

Funny thing about that word: insurrection. If you look it up on line right now you will find that it is a revolt or uprising or resistance to civil authority. Hmmm. That would mean there were several hundred acts of insurrection last year around the country. Or more. For example, the parents insisting that people who work for them – the teachers – teach children what the parents want… They were, and are, resisting civil authority. Next time you go to a PTA meeting, be careful what you say.

But if you look at the older definitions, such as in the Oxford English Dictionary – which, before the internet, was considered to be fairly authoritative, you will find: “the action of rising in arms against established authority.” In arms…

Further, consider the protestors trying to prevent the nomination and voting process for a Supreme Court judge; aren’t they doing precisely the same thing? They have been quite vociferous over the past 30 years or so in attempting to block the seating of certain Supreme Court judges. And the Supreme Court is an equal branch of government with Congress and the Executive. So, if we are in fact going to have equal justice, shouldn’t those folks be charged with insurrection?

Personally, I have a problem with charges of insurrection. Not that I want to defend enemies of the United States. But I have some concern over just who gets to decide who is an enemy.

Some situations are pretty clear: German U-Boat skipper in 1942: very clear. But what about a member of a political party that wants to destroy the United States? You know, like a member of the Communist Party? Like the folks who were black-balled in Hollywood six decades ago? The Communist party wanted, and still wants, to destroy the United States. But the folks who were black-balled are regarded by academia and the entertainment industry, at a minimum, as “the wrongfully persecuted.” And those who defended them are regarded as heroes.

Were they? Or were they insurrectionists?

I don’t like Nazis. Do I think they should be forbidden from demonstrating? Basically, no. We all may not like them, or what they are saying. But we have to give them the benefit of the rights protected by the Constitution. As unpleasant as that might be some times. Isn’t that the point of the First Amendment’s guarantee of Free Speech and Press, and the right to Peacefully Assemble?

And the same applies to some folks who – unarmed – demonstrated around the Capital, and who were at first invited into the building by Capital police. Was it screwy? Yes. I’m sure it’s the first time something screwy took place in Washington… The fact that the crowd appears to have been led by agent provocateurs working for, well, someone… should make us all sit back and scratch our heads.

And then hesitate when anyone mentions calling someone a breaker of his oath, calling him, in effect, an enemy of the state.

Insisting on everyone having equal rights – every time, with zero regard for race, religion, political party, etc., hardly seems like breaking an oath to me. It more seems like the whole point of the oath, to stand up for the Constitution even when suddenly there is a resounding chorus from one side of the stage calling for things that don’t seem right, calling people enemies, black-balling them. The oath requires that you do the right thing, even when everyone else seems to have forgotten, even if only you and God seem to know what the right thing is. After all, isn’t an oath nothing more than words we say to God?

Copyright 2022 Arrias
www.vicsocotra.com