"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;..."
SUPPORT, n. The act or operation of upholding or sustaining.
1. That which upholds, sustains or keeps from falling, as a prop, a pillar, a foundation of any kind.
2. That which maintains life; as, food is the support of life, of the body, of strength. Oxygen or vital air has been supposed to be the support of respiration and of heat in the blood.
3. Maintenance; subsistence; as an income sufficient for the support of a family; or revenue for the support of the army and navy.
4. Maintenance; an upholding; continuance in any state, or preservation from falling, sinking or failing; as taxes necessary for the support of public credit; a revenue for the support of government.
5. In general, the maintenance or sustaining of any thing without suffering it to fail, decline or languish; as the support of health, spirits, strength or courage; the support of reputation, credit, &c.
6. That which upholds or relieves; aid; help; succor; assistance.
1. To drive from; to thrust back; hence, to deny; to repel a demand, charge, or accusation; to oppose; to resist; the effect of which is to maintain ones own claims.
2. To forbid; to prohibit; that is, to drive from, or back. Milton calls the forbidden fruit, the defended fruit.
3. To drive back a foe or danger; to repel from any thing that which assails or annoys; to protect by opposition or resistance; to support or maintain; to prevent from being injured, or destroyed.
4. To vindicate; to assert; to uphold; to maintain uninjured, by force or by argument; as, to defend our cause; to defend rights and privileges; to defend reputation.
5. To secure against attacks or evil; to fortify against danger or violence; to set obstacles to the approach of any thing that can annoy. A garden may be defended by a wall, a hill or a river.
Definitions from 1828 Webster Dictionary
This is why I am both an Oathkeepe and III%er. Bring it on feds
I took my first oath in 1966 and have never looked back, but I have taken my oath as an officer several times, originally in 1978, but several times there after when demonstrating to those about to be commissioned what they are going to up hold. In that oath there is a provision that the oath is taken "with out purpose of evasion or mental reservation "; that is what scares my about some of the flag ranks running around D.C., they seem not to remember what they plegded to uphold. The PC talk and CYA for career moves is absolutly repulsive.
Our "PRESIDENT" has taken the same oath when he was sworn into office. Has he upheld his Oath?
Geared-up and ready to do whatever it takes to honor the oath I took 48 years ago.....
All Washington politicians and functionaries operate, not according to the Constitution, but according to pragmatism or "realpolitik", political realism or practical politics, especially policy based on power rather than on ideals. To think that anyone in Congress (except Ron Paul, most of the time) is guided or restrained by the Constitution is to deceive oneself. They have no scruples; they lost all scruples when they became permanent residents of the District of Corruption.
They do comply with the Constitution, but not to the extent that satisfies the Constitution, only to the extent that satisfies their own consciences. They only dabble in Constitution role-play for a few weeks before election time, knowing that the majority of voters are totally clueless about what their Senators and Representative have done or how they have voted, not just during their last term, but during their entire time in Washington.
Among the minority of voters who do care enough to know, most don't care enough about the particular issues to understand or interpret how and why their Pols in D.C. voted as they did. Among the noble few who do care about the particular issues, most have been driven mad by the total disconnect between their Pols in D.C. and the people back home.
Therefore, the number of home folks to whom the Pols must answer is so small as to be insignificant and of no concern to the Pols, whose responsibility to their lobbyists becomes their primary concern, their conscience and their scruples having already been silenced and suppressed.