if you read any number of glowing reports and fanboy interviews on the recent Oathkeeper presence in Ferguson, you might easily believe Oathkeepers are just civic minded professionals, helping protect local businesses against rable rousing molotov cocktail tossing street criminals . Helping business board up, filling water buckets, and ,oh yes, keeping an armed rooftop presence in the town. Kind of like " Chamber of Commerce fuerte", so full of good will and protection they are. Recent interviews reveal Ferguson Oathkeeper spokesman Sam Andrews to be a placid looking ,soft spoken man who presents an air of assuring ,reasoned authority. He is the man who has the overview, who sees what no one else sees from his rooftop perch, whom businesses turned to for protection. He assures us the Ferguson grand jury was racially diverse, that Officer Wilson did the right thing, that the local police forces did an excellent job but were simply no match for the unruly street criminals ..until ,of course , the Oathkeepers arrived to save the day. Makes you feel so safe. Andrews is so reassuring. How nice, the former defense contractor wants to protect the weakest among us, right? Or wait, in Ferguson, wasn't he working to provide back up for the already armed police forces? He has said he radioed police about things he observed from the rooftop. In fact he is pretty sure he saved the police as well as the businesses..He is such a comfort to have around, good ol Sam and the boys.
but what lies under the placid , polished veneer of the new oathkeepers? have a look under the orange Gadsen rattler for a clue:
Bypassing for now the overarching issue of heavily armed groups showing up in communities they neither represent nor have allegiance to, I want to draw your attention to an article titled 'Federal employees are under no obligation to carry out an illegal order" by By George Rasley, featured on the national Oathkeepers website and regional Oathkeeper sites such as the Southern California Oathkeeper blog/website,on 11/22/14 and first published in Conservative HQ, a tea party newsletter dated 11/21/14 .
It claims:
1.President Obama's immigration action is illegal
2.Federal employees have taken an oath (hint, hint oathkeepers)and can legally disobey implementation of Obama immigration actions
3. dissenting federal employees can legally ARREST other employees who do attempt to implement the law
4. muses that Obama's military escort can ARREST the president over immigration action though admits it would be hard to get them to do so.
i reprint it because i think we need to understand what is really going on here:i have omitted some sections, for length.full article is easy enough to find online.
QUOTED TEXT AS FOLLOWS:Breaks in block quotes indicate my edits, primarily for length, full article easily found online)
"Gallons of ink have already been spilled on the pages of America’s newspapers by scholars and lawyers explaining that President Obama does not have all or key elements of the authority he claims to have to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.
And gallons more have been spilled explaining the details of how such an illegal and unconstitutional amnesty would work and the steps Congress might take to defund it.
But what no one seems to have recognized is that it takes people – federal employees, sworn law enforcement agents, and maybe even some military personnel – to accomplish Obama’s illegal goals.
Someone has to let the illegal aliens out of jail, issue the documents, mail the green cards and do all the hundreds of other tasks necessary to carry out Obama’s illegal and unconstitutional scheme. And each of those individuals took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not blindly follow a president’s orders.
And there’s a good bit of evidence that federal employees, sworn law enforcement agents and military officers can not only refuse an illegal order, but if they don’t they accrue personal criminal or civil liability.
American military law and tradition holds that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders -- if the order was illegal. So, an order that is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it.
..
So, U.S. military personnel are authorized by their oath of enlistment and training to refuse unlawful orders, indeed, officers are actually authorized to arrest those who issue unlawful orders, unlikely as it is that President Obama’s military aide will attempt to arrest him.
...
Naturally, federal employees who refuse to carry out orders believing they will result in such a violation usually will not be praised by an agency for their righteousness. Instead, they will be branded as being insubordinate.
..
The Supreme Court held in Marbury v. Madison, that an act passed as law in obvious violation of the U.S. Constitution is not a law, but void.
In the now quaint sounding words of Justice Marshall, “the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”
Meaning that an “executive order,” which has less status than a statue passed by Congress, that is in obvious violation of the U.S. Constitution is not law, but void, and therefore not a lawful order requiring compliance by any federal employee, military officer or sworn law enforcement agent.
In addition to the National ICE Council another group that has stepped forward to offer support and encouragement to federal employees, sworn law enforcement officers and military personnel who might find themselves in the ethical and constitutional dilemma of being given an illegal order is Oath Keepers, a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, reserves, National Guard, veterans, Peace Officers, and Fire Fighters and those who support them.
Stewart Rhodes, Founder and President of Oath Keepers, issued a statement after President Obama’s speech saying, “If we don’t have rule of law that applies to the government, under the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, then we have a dictatorship, and We the People are absolved of any obligation or obedience to such usurpers and oath-breakers.”
Relying on Justice Marshall’s reasoning, over 210 years of Supreme Court precedent, military law and precedent and various departmental regulations it would seem that federal employees, sworn law enforcement officers or military personnel can reasonably conclude that Obama’s executive actions to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens are illegal and or unconstitutional. These principled federal officers and employees have both the obligation to disobey those orders and a legal right to protection from retribution if they do.
It is time that all Americans stand against oath-breakers like Barack Obama, and with any principled Oath Keeper who chooses to refuse Obama's illegal and unconstitutional order to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens."
and there you have it.