Are Our Local Officials Oath Keepers?

Some of you may have heard of a new “organization” called Oath Keepers. There is a lot of conflicting information on the internet about them. There is much effort to portray them as “radical rightwing ” individuals with an evil agenda to overthrow the government. The same philosophy that sees the word “patriot” as a terrorist threat. But what is an “Oath Keeper”, really?

When most of our officials including police officers are sworn in they must TAKE AN OATH.


n. pl. oaths


a. A solemn, formal declaration or promise to fulfill a pledge, often calling on God, a god, or a sacred object as witness.
b. The words or formula of such a declaration or promise.
c. Something declared or promised.
This particular oath that they take is to uphold and obey the constitution of the United States. Now, once someone takes this kind of oath, one would think that it must be followed. Thus – Oath Keepers. Strange that a group of people who have made a promise must now declare they are going to keep it, after having already placed right hand on Bible and all, swearing to uphold the Constitution, and then to be seen as somehow not right in the head for doing so….
Anyhow, that oath they take means they MUST, BY LAW, follow the constitution as written to the best of their abilities.
While the “Oath Keepers” are focused at the moment on keeping us free from tyranny in general, lets look at one small facet that seems to effect far too many of us far too often.

Fourth Amendment – Search and Seizure

Amendment Text

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Probable Cause – “a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime“.

“a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person’s belief that certain facts are probably true”.

What IS reasonable? I suppose that could be left up to interpretation and opinion. THAT is the loophole. I had a short lesson recently from a very good teacher who is a State Trooper. The gist of this lesson was that ANYTHING AT ALL can be used as probable cause if they wish to perform a search. A tiny dried out grass clipping from the lawn in the wrong place could give an officer “probable cause” to search for drugs, because it “looks like marijuana”. Or a fleck of cigarette ash could be used as probable cause to search if the supposed “crime” includes ANYTHING that could end up looking remotely like those ashes…

Are these the signs of an oath keeper? NO. An oath keeper is NOT someone who can bend and manipulate the rules to suit their situation.

The “Probable Cause” rule is there for a REASON. If it were REALLY that easy to find probable cause for a search, then it would not be listed in the Constitution as a protection.

“Reasonable suspicion”. Does this mean that if a police officer happens to have known someone for years and years, and they are pretty sure you would probably have something illegal in your possession if they could just get a search warrant somehow, that they have free reign to invent, manipulate, or otherwise fabricate “evidence” in order to meet the standards for probable cause? NO! This is totally unprofessional behavior. Anyone practicing their profession using these tactics is BREAKING their oath to uphold the constitution.



    1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
    2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
  1. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

I would assume that taking an oath to uphold something as important as the Constitution would be rather important to follow thru on, much like signing a contract, and acting in such a way as to circumnavigate the instructions of the Constitution would be a breaking of the contract and grounds for firing.

But I have never seen anyone be fired for not following the oath they took.

Which is exactly why these “Oath Keepers” have appeared on the scene. Now, how can being an Oath Keeper be a BAD thing?




Oath Keepers?

Published in: on November 3, 2009 at 3:30 pm  Leave a Comment  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: