Author Description

Noting that the military oath of office requires defense of the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic this paper examines the concept of a domestic enemy and assesses the implication of that domestic threat for the military officer called to the Constitution's defense. The author proposes that there are two legitimate challenges to the oath taken by the commissioned officer. The first arises from the proposition that constitutional law is secondary to natural law. Since the officer is morally obligated to support natural law over constitutional law and the two have historically conflicted, a clash with the officer's sworn oath is inevitable. The second challenge occurs when known constitutional issues remain unresolved; it may also be brought about simply by accepting the position of those who argue that the living nature of Constitution allows its re-interpretation in light of a changing culture. The resulting constitutional ambiguity has the potential to leave the officer without moorings on which to interpret his responsibilities under the oath.