Comment: Clearly

(See in situ)


Clearly

the type of sworn oath here is the same as the 'oath of allegiance to the king' you used. I would argue that there is only one use for an oath and that is to make a sworn declaration, whether to tell the truth, support a constitution, or give allegiance to a king. There is only one punishment for the violation of a sworn declaration as well, that is perjury.

What was the punishment those who violated their sworn oath of allegiance to the king? What would that be called if not perjury? Did these persons who swore an oath of allegiance to the king have to sign for it? No, simply sworn in front of God and at least 2 other witnesses. Thus that is the reason why marriage ceremonies require 2 witnesses. This is why affidavits of fact require 2 witnesses before they are admissible in a court of law as evidence.

I have not taken an oath of office but I am willing to bet there must be 2 witnesses present at the oath ceremony. I am willing to bet there is affidavits created at every oath ceremony where the holder of office has had to sign. Otherwise, how will they prove in a court of law their vested authority to establish jurisdiction?

The Constitution is not binding to those who have not signed it, but it is binding to those who have sworn a declaration to be bound by it. To violate that sworn declaration is still perjury. Who has standing to punish this violation?

My guess would be a Grand Jury who's indictment then represents the People of the United States. It is too bad there is no more Grand Juries in the United States for no one knows how they are created anymore. I doubt there are 24 more enlightened people here or anywhere for that matter.