|
|
The American |
|
|
Write:
|
Every public office in each of the fifty (50) states requires the holder, before taking office, to take an oath to uphold the constitutions and laws of the United States and the State or local jurisdiction in which the office holder serves. It applies to Mayors, legislators, clerks, Judges, Sheriffs, and Chiefs of Fire & Police, and on and on. Every law enforcement officer is similarly sworn. The oath now seems like an historic curio and a symbolic formality, but it has been and remains a very serious legal matter. Failure to take the oath and subscribe in writing to that oath, under penalty of perjury, can result in forfeiture of the office. Signed oaths are required by law to be filed in the government’s public records office and made available to any citizen upon request. The oath became very important following the War Between the States, when rebellious states were under the federal boot during the period known as Reconstruction. Post-WBS constitutional amendments (13-15) were enacted to guarantee the rights of freedmen previously held in bondage. The reunited states were allowed to self-govern upon enacting new state constitutions that were consistent with the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution. Laws were later enacted that allowed citizens to enforce the new constitutional protections. The necessity for the oath was to compel local and state office holders to abide by the new national and state constitutions, as well as all federal and state laws. Without the oath, it would be difficult to consistently uphold constitutional protections and enforce laws. Failure to adhere to the oath gave rise to the removal of office holders. That dire threat gave rise to the solemnity of the ‘swearing-in’ ceremony, which was a public demonstration and assurance that all citizens would be protected according to the law. This historic legal background becomes important in understanding a current matter relating to local law enforcement, specifically, enforcement of immigration laws and the rise of the so-called ‘sanctuary cities.’ How is it that any person sworn to abide by the oath, including ‘officers of the law,’ such as City, County, and State Attorneys General, can ignore the blatant violation of the oath of office, such as occurs openly and notoriously in the case of so-called ‘sanctuary cities?’ How is it that the United States Department of Justice, including the Attorney General, refuses to initiate actions to compel the removal of office holders for violating their oaths of office and conspiring to block the enforcement of immigration laws? The attorneys have a choice, too. They may initiate ouster proceedings or they should be themselves removed from office and disbarred. Can you imagine the outcry if there were open and notorious refusals to enforce civil rights laws? Consider the outrage if local elected officials enacted ordinances compelling law enforcement officers not to enforce federal civil rights laws? It is not the option of those sworn to an oath of office to select which laws are to be enforced. Ignorance of the applicable federal law is not a valid defense to such a charge. Is there not one courageous City, County, State, or U.S. Attorney General that is willing to uphold his or her oath of office and initiate removal of all persons violating their oaths of office? Maybe it will require action by citizens. Most states have laws that allow citizens to act in the name of the State when local or state officials fail or refuse to take lawful action. This is not a discretionary matter. So long as the immigration laws exist, then enforcement is not optional. It is the oath of office that sustains the rule of law. Once that oath becomes selectively observed, the foundation of the nation is put at risk.
|
