12 votes

Is it Treason to Speak AGAINST the Constitution If You've Sworn an Oath to Defend It?

Do people who take an oath to uphold and defend the constitution have freedom of speech?

I think this question... and it's answer could fundamentally change the way people look at "government service."

Is it lawful, for you to swear and oath to uphold and defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic... and at the same time speak against it?

Instead if you're going to take an oath to something... it should be because you feel it is RIGHT and you have STUDIED WHY it is right. Just my thoughts on this subject... I invite yours.

I think it should be a treasonous act to speak against the constitution if you have accepted a CONTRACT (the oath) to defend it against all enemies - including potentially yourself - with your mouth.

Anyone even talking about infringing the right to bear arms after taking an oath is committing a TREASONOUS act.

How can you DEFEND the constitution when you are ATTACKING it?

Lets drive the point home....

Anyone speaking out against the constitution, after taking an oath to defend it - and not at the very least PROPOSING AN AMMENDMENT - is advocating for OVERTHROW of the constitution.

That's treason.

I challenge anyone to dispute these razor sharp facts.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Probably not to SPEAK aganist it

but when you ACT against it then I would say yes.

Isaiah 2:4
And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

Is taking away the rights of the people

giving aid and comfort to our enemies?

in general

violating any oath is wrong and sometimes maybe even illegal.


Truth is treason in the empire of lies.

We the people elites... (lie number one) in order to form a more perfect profitable union... (lie number two). Do we need to go on?

Talking about the flaws in the Constitution is not treason

Who wouldn't want aspects of the Constitution clarified and amended? There is a lump of ignorant fools who do not understand what 'natural born citizen' means, who are ignorant of what was meant by 'general welfare', then there are the nefarious clauses - Supremecy Clause, Commerce Clause, etc that have been severely abused. Those parts that directly deal with the 3 branches need adjustments and refining.
But what can never be fiddled with are the 10 Amendments that deal with the Natural/God-given rights of the people and the sovereignty of the individual States. Talk is one thing, but the moment any legislation is presented either by the fed gov, state or local (city, township, municipality) authority that would abrogate a natural right, treason had occured, and those traitors who signed onto and introduced such legislation need to be arrested and tried for treason. And I believe 100% the punishment for treason must be death. I know many here would rather we contribute our earnings towards supporting these fiends forever in some security prison but I have a thing about wasting money needlessly. We squash, trap and kill roaches and rodents that dare enter our house and the same end result should befall those vermin who try to pollute our legislative houses.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

I agree with your premise.

However amending the constitution is not what is being proposed. What they are advocating for is OVERTHROW of the constitution. See: Supremacy clause. If they are simply trying to pass some act or statute which would be presumed to over-rule the 2nd amendment that is aiding enemies of the republic who would like to attack the constitution without actually having to go through the VERY DIFFICULT process of amending it.

you're being extremely literal

I already said, "But what can never be fiddled with are the 10 Amendments". I would think it obvious by that statement that no legislation can be presented which abrogates our Natural Rights nor attempts made to raise such an issue. The problem is that there are people out there petitioning their representatives to do just that, and if these representatives are worth anything, they must at the very least, allow for such discussion with the intention of reminding their constituency that the Constitution is clear as to what the rights of the people are, that these rights are inalienable, and as someone who has sworn an oath to defend and protect the Constitution, they CANNOT and WILL NOT do anything that would betray that oath. But that would take a politician with morals and we know there are almost none left out there.
What they CANNOT DO, and I thought that was obvious but I apparently not, is broach the subject themselves, nor begin such a debate.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

U.S. Constitution Article 3 Section 3 defines treason.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Speaking against the Constitution is not treason per se. If the speech gives aid and comfort to those waging war on the States, then maybe. Then again, the states are separate from the Constitution, so I think it would be a stretch to prove that.
If one believes the first amendment protects speech against the constitution one has given an oath to uphold and protect, then one might argue that speaking against the Constitution is an act that upholds its free speech protections.

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson


these public servants have entered into a private contract stating they will UPHOLD AND DEFEND the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. That includes themselves too...

IMO - They have waived their right of free speech - if they did not agree with the constitution they should not have taken an oath to it. IMO - constitution amendments should only come from the PEOPLE anyway.

And what of war waged against the people through

the blatant abrogation of our Natural Rights? We should just sit back and let it happen?
You seem to be dismissing the 9th Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison


You are dismissing the private contract the public servant enters into (the oath to uphold the constitution). You can't uphold something while speaking against parts of it.... can you?

Plainly said I'm saying THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT APPLY with respect to a public servant speaking about the constitution - they are in private contract to uphold it NO MATTER WHAT.

When a public servant takes an oath - they are agreeing to trade, on a temporary basis - rights for privileges, at least while on duty.

I'm dismissing nothing

Nowhere did I write that sworn politicans can speak out against unalienable rights, that's your assumption.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

I didn't write the Constitution.

The question is whether speaking against the Constitution is treason. The document itself defines treason. It says treason is waging war on the states or giving aid and comfort to those that are waging war on them. It says, as far as the Constitution is concerned, that is treason and only that.
As for abrogating rights, it may be a crime, but it isn't treason. Not all crime is treason. I might steal your lunch money. That would be petty theft, but it isn't treason.
Speaking out against the Constitution isn't even a crime, much less treason. Breaking an oath? Is that a crime? I know adultery is breaking a marriage vow. It may be grounds for divorce, but it isn't a crime. It isn't treason.

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson

subversion is also war

War isn't just about soldiers and weaponry. The intentional collapse of a nation through subversive measures is a war. Creating systems that enslave and subjugate a people is also a war.
The Bill of Rights is explicit in its wording of 'shall not'. Anything introduced that intends to break that trust is an act of war.
But if its military and weaponry you want, the this government has already begun its war against the people by killing two American citizens without due process - Al-alaki and his son. You forget that it has already be deemed that America is also a battlefield. The war has already begun and you don't even realize it.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

There are ways to amend the Constitution

I don't see a problem with saying this or that in the Constitution is wrong and should be changed, even if one has taken an oath.

There is a greater moral danger than ideals and actions not lining up. Worse is when ideals get thrown out because we don't feel in control of our actions. For example, I don't believe government funds should pay for sidewalks. It's a worse moral danger for me to throw away that belief for the sake of consistency because I have to use sidewalks to live my life than for me to come to acknowledge the inconsistency between my ideals and actions.

Defend Liberty!

The only "loophole" in the free speech ban

I could see for public servants is if they ONLY propose legislation that is adverse to the constitution in AMENDMENT FORM.

As a purist however I would rather see people not take an oath to something they don't fully support... meaning... don't take the job. If you want to change the constitution it should be done as one of the masters... not attempted statutorily by a public servant.




Treason is acting to overthrow the government by force. Mere advocacy (talk) cannot be treason. See, 1st Amendment. But you better not "adhere to enemies" while at it. Tokyo Rose forgot that bit.

The crime of treason has had some broader definitions, back in the day. At one time in England copulating with the king's wife or the wife of the king's eldest son was treason. Protecting the old blood-line, doncha know.

There was also "petty treason" - violent acts against ones superiors other than the king. A wife who murdered her husband, or a serf who murdered his lord was guilty of petty treason.

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln

More on Treason:


1. a crime that undermines the offender's government
2. disloyalty by virtue of [i]subversive behavior[/i]
3. an act of [i]deliberate betrayal[/i]

Treason can also be lying, which is what the media AND our "elected" leadership tends to do.

Lima-1, out.

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

This, perfect legal analysis.

This, perfect legal analysis.

Ventura 2012

Nobody's perfect

The main difference between murder and treason in Merry Olde England was the method of execution. A peer usually enjoyed a tidy decapitation, but for treason the penalty was drawing, hanging, and quartering. Way gruesome. Women were burned at the stake, because the quartering business was considered too erotic. That was before video games.

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln

my novel of a comment! LOL

Good Questions, +1 Thought Provoking!

I agree with you ultimately, but that is under the premise that the Constitution of the united States of America is the supreme law of the states United on the North American continent. However, when service persons (formerly myself included) sign that dotted line, we waive many rights, some knowingly and others unknowingly.

Now, doing so unknowingly does not release you of the liability to uphold that contract. In essence I think this is why you are given a "Title" such as PVT, PFC, LTC, hell probably even President since he is the supreme commander of the United States Armed Forces.

which I have come to believe do not in fact represent the States united by the Constitution, but the corporate entity "United States", defined as District of Columbia, PR, Guam, and whatever land that corporation has purchased since it's inception. It's all in the details of their legalese. Another weird example of this is the flag that you see the United States Army wearing on their uniforms has a "gold fringe" around on the outside of it, my current understanding is that LEGALLY this is not the flag of the united States, which is defined under Title 4 section 1 of USC. Service members believe they represent the states United but the infact represent the United States. I mean, if they aren't wearing the Title 4 flag, who's flag is it? Some claim eisenhower authorized it I guess for use during military court-martials, but either way, executive order or not, it's not the flag defined by the USC.
See: http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/04C1.txt

Anyway signing the contract means you represent this newly formed corporate entity. You have voluntarily given up even more of your sovereignty by accepting the title. I believe this is why they give you the title, so that you sign it, you think that its you, when in fact it is a corporate entity, and thus you become liable for that "Paper" person.

You are not really "PVT John Doe," but by signing it you now represent the corporate entity "PVT John Doe".

I guess what I'm getting at is, ultimately, under the Constitution they do have free speech, but they have also knowingly and/or unknowingly waived that right by signing the contract.

This begs the question to me can a "right" really be waived? How does that work since rights are not "granted" according to the Republic.

--I don't know the answer to that, maybe you understand how waiving a right works, seems odd that anyone would EVER EVER do this, and I have been guilty, as most of as have probably done unknowingly... but this is the nature of their game. We don't realize that by doing these things we accept voluntarily the notion that rights are "granted" the consequence of which is really serfdom/servitude/slavery. BUT is it really slavery if you just volunteered??????? OOPS!
Bottom line I guess, in terms of taking the Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the united States of America, and then speaking against it would in fact LEGALLY be a breach of contract. Does breach of contract render the contract void?? I don't know that answer either. I'm no expert on any of this, these are just some things I have been thinking about and looking into. Hopefully I don't get too much smack down for writing this, I am open to criticism in these arguments, and am always willing to learn more.
Meet Your Strawman

VERY VERY well put together reasoning...

wow I'm really impressed... a lot of folks around here are really starting to "get it" - this is VERY encouraging.

Nice job cwk you've got a pretty good grasp of what's going on as well as have pondered a few ideas back at me for my consumption... kudos.

Yes I believe breach of contract would be something that could be used quite regularly. Ultimately however to drive the point home we should be charging some of these people with treason however that's VERY difficult to do since the District Attorney/Attorney General is the gatekeeper and the cop is the meal ticket...

excellent post

Rights can be waived via our unlimited right to contract. Doesn't a non-disclosure contract impede your first amendment right to free speech? You bet it does and the same applies to joining the service. You can voluntarily waive a right but it cannot be taken from you withoit your consent (in theory).


You swear to uphold protect and defend the constitution. If you speak against it then you clearly are not protecting or defending it, and likely are not upholding it. The constitution is the law of the land, undermining the law of the land is treason any way you look at it.

Josh Brueggen
Jack of all Trades
Precinct Commiteeman Precinct 5 Rock Island Co Illinois

Well said...

prob could have made this one short paragraph my entire post ;)

If there was an amendment to

If there was an amendment to the constitution that stated you must imprison or murder people with blue eyes because they were in some way "enemies" of liberty, would "oath keepers" do it?