Which oath supersedes the other ?

Question

Which takes presidence? Swearing a oath to the chain of comand, or defending the constitution against all enemiues, foreign and domestic?

I mean enemies

I've really gotta start using spellcheck

Answer 1

The underlying assumption is that thee would be no conflict. But this is not an ideal world. Since the constitution is the highest law of the land, and no person or group is supposed to be above the law, I would say defending the constitution should come first.

Answer 2

Defending the Constitution is the first and foundational oath. And the only one specifically required by the Constitution.

In fact, if I'm not mistaken, officers swear an oath to defend the Constitution and to faithfully discharge the duties of their office. Since those duties cannot legally, by definition, violate the Constitution, there is no potential conflict.

Or looked at another way, following the chain of command is an implicit part of the oath. Defending the Constitution is explicit. And the explicit always overrides the implicit.

Answer 3

A friend of mine who was in the service told me the chain of command thing is the most important, but from a purely logical standpoint, the oath to the constitution seems more important to me.

The constitution is unchanging, while the chain of command changes regularly. What if there's a wacko in the White House, who wants to destroy the constitution? Don't you have a moral obligation to defend it? Wouldn't said wacko fall under domestic enemies?

That's just my take on it, mind you. I guess this one is a tricky one, and one you will need to decide for yourself.

Answer 4

At least from a Military Service standpoint, the oath is the same. One does not supersede the other, they compliment.

Answer 5

There shouldn't be a opportunity for that to arise, your chain of command is based on protecting against enemies.

Answer 6

dunno?