Op-ed: Violating the Oath of Office

As a former Navy officer who served for 11 ? years, with 14 months in Vietnam and Cambodia, I am deeply disgusted by the impeachment trial vote in the Senate. Upon commissioning, I took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic -- the same oath that the President and each Congressperson takes. Because mine took place during an active military conflict in the early 70’s, the oath constituted a “blood” oath, meaning upon taking it, I offered to be willing to lay down my very life for a mission, for the flag, and for my fellow sailors, Marines, and soldiers.

To watch the President and members of the Senate, the upper house of Congress, I am appalled at how lightly our Senators regard that same oath. Clearly, they do not view it as a “blood” oath nor perhaps should they. I acknowledge that politics at the national level can appear warlike, but even in the safety of backroom politics, there is a place for courage, sacrifice, and character. There are ample opportunities for a “come to Jesus” moment.

The Senate can operate with impunity because self-imposed punishment does not serve as a sufficient deterrent. What we are experiencing today is a transactional Congress willing to trade public trust and personal integrity for greater access to political power and campaign funding. The weight of integrity is on the decline as moral turpitude is on the rise. Violating all three sworn public oaths: a) Oath of office, b) Juror’s oath, and c) Pledge of Allegiance carried no immediate penalties and therefore were inconsequential.

The fix was in and once again justice would have to be deferred.

Although swearing-in rituals are largely ceremonial, even the most sacred oaths remain practically meaningless without a serious risk of severe repercussions, if violated. After taking the three oaths prior to the trial, the Senators voted against hearing witnesses and viewing key documents -- opting to align with the Majority Leader and the accused. Choosing to do otherwise assured inviting reprisals from a bully President, the right-wing media, and a challenge in the primary. The cost of breaking ranks in pursuit of a just trial was deemed to be too high.

What we saw were Congresspersons in both houses blatantly exercising cafeteria politics. Through jury nullification, Republicans operated from a breach of trust with a clear intent to acquit the President.

When the writers, interpreters, and implementers of the law are one and the same, the system is inherently flawed. The precedent set further encourages a wayward chief executive to violate his Oath and undermine the power of Congress.

In the future when called to make collective sacrifices, i.,e., “to give blood”, regardless of the oath, we the common citizenry shall hesitate. In my opinion, failure to pursue the truth in the context of a fair trial forfeits the right to govern.

Ted Marsh, Lcdr, USNR (retired)