Oathkeeper? Guess again!

Their site says:

Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders,  who pledge to fulfill the oath all military and police take to “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” That oath, mandated by Article VI of the Constitution itself, is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and Oath Keepers declare that they will not obey unconstitutional orders, such as orders to disarm the American people, to conduct warrantless searches, or to detain Americans as “enemy combatants” in violation of their ancient right to jury trial. See the Oath Keepers Declaration of Orders We Will Not Obey for details

This refers to the statement that "shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution".

The problem is that this statement places them in violation of that oath since the basis of a Constitutional society is the rule of law, which is:

The rule of law is the legal principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to being governed by arbitrary decisions of individual government officials.

Just because you disagree with a law does not mean it is unconstitutional.  And, unless you are a constitutional scholar, you really have no right making a legal opinion about what is constitutional or not (yes, I am a constitutional scholar and a lawyer).

Article VI, Section 2 contradicts the above statement by the oathkeepers and makes it clear that it is the rule of law which applies:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Additionally, other sections of the Constitution and US law go against the premise of their upholding their oath.

Article III, Section iii:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

14th Amendment, Section iii:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The laws on this conduct can be found at 18 USC Chapter 115 and 10 U.S.C. § 892. 

Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951) puts paid to the insurrectionist theory and the belief that one can disobey a lawful order (whether one agrees with it or not):

The obvious purpose of the statute is to protect existing Government, not from change by peaceable, lawful and constitutional means, but from change by violence, revolution and terrorism. That it is within the power of the Congress to protect the Government of the United States from armed rebellion is a proposition which requires little discussion. Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a “right” to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change.

It is an absurdity that a document which was intended to "form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" would somehow allow for acts of rebellion, no matter how well intentioned. 

In other words, the Oathkeepers are the people they took an oath to protect us from if they are unwilling to live within the Constitution and the rule of law. They need to understand that should they fail to obey an order or enforce a constitutionally enacted law, that they are in violation of that oath.

Bottom line is that the reality is you are an oathbreaker than an oathkeeper if you fail to obey a lawful order you may not agree with.

Constitutionalists and the rule of law.

Most people who describe themselves as "Constitutionalists" need to understand EXACTLY what it is they claim to support: especially if they believe that have any form of "right" to insurrection.  Article III, Section iii makes it clear that position is bullshit (as does various other passages in the Constitution):

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment also makes it clear that:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

For a subset of this group of Constitutionalists which calls itself the "oathkeepers"  needs to be reminded that they are also subject to UCMJ if they are in the military.  The UCMJ  has sections which strictly prohibit many things done by the right. One is showing contempt toward the President (and other government officials):

10 U.S. Code § 888 - Art. 88. Contempt toward officials
 Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

There is also 10 U.S. Code § 894 - Art. 94. Mutiny or sedition

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who—
(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;
(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or other disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;
(3) fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.
(b) A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.

18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 addresses treason, sedition, and other subversive activities with 18 U.S. Code §2385 specifically prohibiting advocating the overthrow of the US Government.  These specific laws would be in line with Article III, Section iii of the Constitution.

And I have yet to see a "Constitutionalist" show me where exactly the Second Amendment happens to explicitly repeal Article III, Section iii.  We can also add that the Constitution was partially a reaction to Shays Rebellion.

The really big point that "constitutionalists" fail to understand is that they are bound by the laws which have been made in accordance to the Constitution. If they believe the laws were not lawfully enacted, then they are to use the proper constitutional framework, which is not rebellion, but the courts and legislature.

That what is meant by the rule of law:  The US is a nation of laws, not people. Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution states:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

The problem is that we have seen people who claim to believe in the US Constitution who fail to understand basic concepts such as the Feds can regulate Interstate Trade (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3), yet we have seen silly and futile attempts to thwart this by the right.

In short, people who call themselves "Constitutionalists" need to bone up on what exactly they claim to believe in.

See also:

• No. Sorry. You're Not a 'Constitutional Conservative'