Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Proposal: Oathkeeper Protection Act

  1. #1

    Proposal: Oathkeeper Protection Act

    In a similar vein as the whistleblower statutes, but hopefully more carefully considered and edified, I am interested in preparing an Oathkeeper Statute, which would protect people from prosecution or punishment who invoke an oath-bound duty to disobey (such as the "Ten Orders We Will Not Obey") during the course of their duties. I have plenty of ideas, but I would like to think-tank it.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    I would like to come up with a better way of carving out the kinds of orders that can be disobeyed without consequence that is not listing them. If they can be characterized for instance. Listing them is not the best solution for the same reason that the bill of rights was not the best solution (and the 9th Amendment's recognition of that).

    Maybe a "if your claim to protection for disobedience under this act works with x-y-z argument"

    and x-y-z is "a personal obligation to uphold and defend the Constitution requiring that the individual refuse to participate in the execution of powers not enumerated in the US Constitution, or enforceable under the Section VI Pursuance Clause to the Supremacy Clause."

    Which only works if their refusal to obey actually matches the enforcement of a non-enumerated power. You will get arguments in court that "The US Constitution does not authorize a federal officer to do whatever, therefore his refusal to obey is covered under Oathkeeper Protection."

    State and County officers, will also answer to their State Constitutions, so the argument would be extended to include the implied powers granted in the State Constitution. In which case the court argument will include what powers the State Constitution extends to the state. This is by and large a good thing, because most State Constitutions are pretty sound also, and the state governments likewise ignore them. It will make for more complicated arguments in court, of course.

  4. #3
    If any orders are not pursuant to the enumerated powers of the US Constitution nor pursuant to the implied powers of the State Constitution, or if the enforcement of such orders would deny to a citizen any guarantees protected in the Bill of Rights or in the State Declaration of Rights, then any officer in any jurisdiction in the State, or any individual carrying out duties under fulfillment of the Oath of Office shall be immune from any retribution for the act of refusing to obey those orders. Any attempt to prosecute, terminate, punish, fine, haze, or harass an individual for acts covered under the Oathkeeper Statute shall be punishable by a felony commensurate with the violation. In order to invoke immediate protection under the Oathkeeper Statute, it should be cited via the chain of command. Protection via the Oathkeeper Statute may never be rejected from consideration in any judicial or quasi judicial proceeding concerning a failure to follow orders in any jurisdiction in this State.

  5. #4
    If any orders are not pursuant to the enumerated powers of the US Constitution nor pursuant to the implied powers of the North Carolina State Constitution, or if the enforcement of such orders would deny to any citizen the protections guaranteed in the Bill of Rights or in the North Carolina State Declaration of Rights, then any officer in any jurisdiction in the State, or any individual carrying out duties under fulfillment of the Oath of Office has the right to refuse such orders with impunity. Any individual covered under the North Carolina Oathkeeper Statute shall be immune from any retribution for the act of refusing to obey those orders. Any attempt to prosecute, terminate, punish, fine, haze, or harass an individual for acts covered under the North Carolina Oathkeeper Statute shall be punishable as a felony, the degree commensurate with the level of the violation. In order to invoke immediate protection under the Oathkeeper Statute, it should be cited via the chain of command. Protection via the Oathkeeper Statute may not be rejected from consideration in any judicial or quasi judicial proceeding concerning a failure to follow orders in any jurisdiction within this State.

  6. #5
    What is your target ? Military , Law Enforcement , Federal Employees ....all the above ?

    Great idea, there is an argument from time to time that what is going on now should require no new laws because the laws already
    exist and are simply being subverted I can't say that I can argue aganst that claim, but this is still a great idea if not more than to educate and
    reiterate that which we already know, I think it's worthwhile. Definetly worth exploring.

    I just looked at the Oathkeeper site, and this caught my eye, I think they are on the right track: "The attempt to disarm the people on April 19, 1775 was the spark of open conflict in the American Revolution. That vile attempt was an act of war..."

    Treasonous I would say, Obama , Holder and the rest of their terrorist friends are guilty of Treason IMO...

    , ,

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Stratovarious View Post
    What is your target ? Military , Law Enforcement , Federal Employees ....all the above ?
    All of the above. Literally, 'everyone who takes the oath.' If a person has raised their right hand and sworn an oath to 'uphold and defend,' then the Oathkeeper Statute is meant for them.

    Great idea, there is an argument from time to time that what is going on now should require no new laws because the laws already
    exist and are simply being subverted I can't say that I can argue aganst that claim, but this is still a great idea if not more than to educate and
    reiterate that which we already know, I think it's worthwhile. Definetly worth exploring.
    In fact, I agree that this is technically unnecessary, just like the Bill of Rights were technically unnecessary. Nevertheless they seem needed as a practical matter. I shudder to think where America would be today without a Bill of Rights.

    I just looked at the Oathkeeper site, and this caught my eye, I think they are on the right track: "The attempt to disarm the people on April 19, 1775 was the spark of open conflict in the American Revolution. That vile attempt was an act of war..."

    Treasonous I would say, Obama , Holder and the rest of their terrorist friends are guilty of Treason IMO...

    , ,
    Aye, the powers that be have been guilty of treason for some time now. I do wish there was the political will to deal with that.

  8. #7
    hmmm
    http://glenbradley.net/share/aleksan...nitsyn_4-t.gif “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

  9. #8
    Do people see a lack of merit in legislation like this?



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.


Similar Threads

  1. Draft proposal: NC Sheriffs First and Gun Rights Protection Act
    By GunnyFreedom in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 01-27-2013, 03:29 PM
  2. Is anyone here an Oathkeeper (thinking about joining)?
    By Nirvikalpa in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 05-07-2012, 09:29 AM
  3. OathKeeper Arrested in Tennesee
    By TruckinMike in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-04-2010, 01:06 AM
  4. Is Chuck an Oathkeeper?
    By Brian4Liberty in forum Chuck Devore Forum 2010
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-07-2009, 07:55 PM
  5. 'Oathkeeper' Movement Growing Rapidly
    By AuH20 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-19-2009, 02:31 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •