Defending Our Constitution

The oath that US military officers take, which is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, is different from the oaths of other military nations that require officers to swear allegiance to a leader. In some countries, military officers are required to swear allegiance to the head of state or the monarch, or to the ruling party. 

This means that the loyalty of the military is directed towards a specific individual or group, rather than towards the constitution or the principles of democracy and the rule of law. In contrast, the oath taken by US military officers is focused on upholding the Constitution of the United States, which is the foundation of American democracy. This means that the military’s loyalty is to the Constitution and the principles that it embodies, such as the protection of individual rights and the rule of law.

This distinction is important because it reinforces the idea that the military is not a political entity, but rather a tool of the government that is used to protect the Constitution and the interests of the American people. By swearing an oath to the Constitution, US military officers are bound to uphold the principles of democracy and the rule of law, regardless of the political situation or the identity of the individuals in power.

Our founding fathers feared a standing army because they knew historically, they had been used as a tool of political power. The US military would not serve as a tool of the state and of the ruling government. In essence, the difference between the US military’s oath and the oaths of other military nations is that the US military is committed to upholding democratic values, whereas other militaries may be more focused on the interests of their leaders political ideology.

In the United States, military officers take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. This oath is explicitly focused on the principles and values of the Constitution, rather than on any specific leader or individual. The emphasis on the Constitution reflects the importance placed on democracy and the rule of law in the United States, where the authority of the government is derived from the people.

For those of you, like me, who swore an Oath to the Constitution, against all enemies… When is the last time you read that document? It takes about 7 minutes in total. May be worth your time.

If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at

Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA


2 thoughts on “Defending Our Constitution”

  1. Yet, when a certain Marine Lt. Col. tried to do just that, uphold the Constitution, he was jailed, last year. How does this get corrected, when you have a political authority dead set on usurping any and all power they can, and a group of military who will not make the attempt to correct the wrongs?
    I’m not criticizing all my fine friends in and retired from the military, but I do question where the boundaries lie that they act, or rather refuse to act on the doctrine of their oath.
    The few modernday attempts that I know of, have only essentially martyred good soldiers, or silently retired them, if not gotten them court martialed.
    Unfortunately, there are those who want to honor their oaths, but are unable to do so because there would need to be a large group of them to be of any effect. Then, there are those who just swore that oath and went on just doing their jobs.
    It is the same problem, but much more pronounced, with politicians who will completely disregard their oath of office, in seek of favor of political power.
    There is a political will component in both examples, and it is a tricky one to deal with.
    Our founders had good reason to fear a standing army. Unfortunately, that is still the case. The problem of late is the attempt to wreck our military, to make it impotent so that another military of sorts can replace it, even if it is another governmental body, like another country, or the UN. That is the left in response to an oath, in action.

Leave a Comment