- The Washington Times - Friday, August 10, 2012

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

`After retired Army Col. Kevin Benson’s fictional Army unit puts down the Tea Party-led insurrection in South Carolina with the justification that the unit was “just following orders,” he might be tempted to look for other ways to not “disappoint the American people” (“The Civil War of 2016,” Comment & Analysis, Wednesday).

I suggest that his think tank not disappoint us and go ahead and study what it means for a member of the military (or for that matter, the Secret Service) to take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Who decides when the Constitution is being violated? The Supreme Court, the commander in chief, Eric Holder’s Justice Department or the individual taking the oath? I suggest the latter. It is time for a national dialogue on what this oath means. If it is ceremonial, get rid of it. If it is legally binding, it is time for individuals to act on their consciences.

RONALD J. SAKOWSKI

Haymarket, Va.

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times is switching its third-party commenting system from Disqus to Spot.IM. You will need to either create an account with Spot.im or if you wish to use your Disqus account look under the Conversation for the link "Have a Disqus Account?". Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More

Click to Hide