# Soldiers loyalty oath **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 30, 2009, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-loyalty-oath/483713 "2009-01-30T14:46:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-loyalty-oath/483713/1 "2009-01-30T14:46:07Z")
A friend of mine sent me an email this morning about a supposed change in loyalty oath proposed by (again supposedly) Obama. I’ll list the email below, but the gist seems to be that Obama is asking for a change in the oath so that instead of an oath to the country (Constitution) he wants the oath given to the office of the President. > [@](#): > > Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is extremely frustrated with orders > that the White House is contemplating. According to sources at the > Pentagon, including all branches of the armed forces, the Obama > Administration may break with a centuries-old tradition. > > A spokesman for General James Cartwright, the Vice Chairman of the Joint > Chiefs of Staff, states that the Obama Administration wants to have > soldiers and officers pledge a loyalty oath directly to the office of > the President, and no longer to the Constitution. > > “The oath to the Constitution is as old as the document itself.” the > spokesman said, “At no time in American history, not even in the Civil > War, did the oath change or the subject of the oath differ. It has > always been to the Constitution.” > > The back-and-forth between the White House and the Defense Department > was expected as President George W. Bush left office. President Obama > has already signed orders to close Guantanamo and to pull combat troops > from Iraq. But, this, say many at the Defense Department, goes to far. > > “Technically, we can’t talk about it before it becomes official policy.” > the spokesman continued. “However, the Defense Department, including the > Secretary, will not take this laying down. Expect a fight from the > bureaucracy and the brass.” > > Sources at the White House had a different point of view. In a circular > distributed by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, the rationale > for the change was made more clear. > > “The President feels that the military has been too indoctrinated by the > old harbingers of hate: nationalism, racism, and classism. By removing > an oath to the American society, the soldiers are less likely to commit > atrocities like those at Abu Ghraib.” > > “We expect a lot of flak over this,” ! the clas sified memo continues. > “But those that would be most against it are those looking either for > attention or control.” > > The time frame for the changes are unknown. However, it is more likely > that the changes will be made around the July 4th holiday, in order to > dampen any potential backlash. The difference in the oath will actually > only be slight. The main differences will be the new phrasing. It is > expected that the oath to the Constitution will be entirely phased out > within two years. I checked on Snopes but they don’t have anything on this. It SOUNDS like the standard anti-Obmam fear mongering to me but I couldn’t find anything on it. What’s the StraightDope here? -XT ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-loyalty-oath/483713/2 "2009-01-30T14:57:40Z")
The oath: I, (NAME), 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; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. It already mentions the president. The oath is not just tradition, it is law. It is in Title 10, Section 502 of the US Code. Congress can change it. The president can’t. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-loyalty-oath/483713/3 "2009-01-30T15:08:41Z")
Yes, I swore the same oath when I was in the service. My assumption is that it’s BS, but what I’d like is a cite that it’s not currently being changed (one that says it can’t be changed would also be excellent). My hope here is that I can fire back an email to my friend with a few links in it so that at least THIS conspiracy theory can be put down. -XT ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-loyalty-oath/483713/4 "2009-01-30T15:24:41Z")
Sounds like bull to me. I can’t seem to find anything older than yesterday (on a furious fifteen-second Google session) so Snopes (and other reaction/ clarification sites) will need more than a few hours to refute it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-loyalty-oath/483713/5 "2009-01-30T15:27:42Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Yes, I swore the same oath when I was in the service. My assumption is that it’s BS, but what I’d like is a cite that it’s not currently being changed (one that says it can’t be changed would also be excellent). My hope here is that I can fire back an email to my friend with a few links in it so that at least THIS conspiracy theory can be put down. > > -XT Well, you’re out of luck. The oath can be changed – it’s simply an act of Congress. Congress could pass tomorrow an law that requires henceforth that all servicemembers swear to faithfully watch every Gilligan’s Island episode, and the President could sign it into law. For that matter, the Presidential oath itself could be changed to require the President to also watch the castaways, and if passed by two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states’ legislatures, it would be the new supreme law of the land. I regard my scenario as only slightly less likely than your friend’s. Maybe a link to [thomas.loc.gov](http://thomas.loc.gov) and a note that this is the site containing all pending actions of Congress, and a wry comment that not one of them is the revision he’s talking about? Other than that, I don’t know… ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-loyalty-oath/483713/6 "2009-01-30T15:30:34Z")
Someone seems to have traced the article to a blog called Jumping in Pools, which is described as “An amalgam of politics and satire. A little bit of humor, too.” This blog tagged the post as “satire.” > **[Military to Pledge Oath To Obama, Not Constitution](https://jumpinginpools.blogspot.com/2009/01/military-to-pledge-oath-to-obama-not.html)** > > Conservative News and Reporting "News for the Rest of Us" Michele Chang NOTE: This article is, in fact, a satire piece. While you're here, r... ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-loyalty-oath/483713/7 "2009-01-30T15:33:56Z")
Looks like the original post noting this hid the fact that it was satire deep within the tags. So nothing to see here. As for the general question, the oath has been substantially changed over the years - during the Civil War it included a pledge that the enlistee had never borne arms against the United States while a citizen. So while it has a general form that is reasonably stable - the current oath has been used since 1959 - that can change and has been changed. [Link.](http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-loyalty-oath/483713/8 "2009-01-30T17:22:33Z")
So atheists can’t serve? What happens if a draftee refuses to take that oath? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-loyalty-oath/483713/9 "2009-01-30T17:32:49Z")
It’s an all volunteer military. If you don’t want to take the oath you don’t have too serve. I was and am an agnostic…I just took the oath for what it was, a military tradition coupled with a bit of drama. I really don’t see why it would matter to an atheist though…if you don’t believe in God then swearing to this imaginary being should really be no skin off your nose. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-loyalty-oath/483713/10 "2009-01-30T18:02:54Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I really don’t see why it would matter to an atheist though…if you don’t believe in God then swearing to this imaginary being should really be no skin off your nose. Well, that’s kind of the point. If I’m making an oath, I want to swear by something that actually matters to me. Saying “So help me God” means jack-shit, so I want something else. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-loyalty-oath/483713/11 "2009-01-30T18:03:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, you’re out of luck. The oath can be changed – it’s simply an act of Congress. But wouldn’t that be enough for the OP’s purposes? the e-mail he quoted makes it sound as if Obama is planning on doing it unilaterally. Pointing out that the oath is set out in federal statute and can only be changed by Congress may help to respond to the person who sent the e-mail. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-loyalty-oath/483713/12 "2009-01-30T18:08:33Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Carrot] Well, that’s kind of the point. If I’m making an oath, I want to swear by something that actually matters to me. Saying “So help me God” means jack-shit, so I want something else. [/QUOTE] Well, Sir, simply substitute \ for ‘God’ and soldier on. No charge for the advice, Sir…we all know officers can’t think for themselves. That’s why ‘God’ made NCO’s… 😉 -XT ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-loyalty-oath/483713/13 "2009-01-30T18:17:05Z")
Nitpick: I’m a soldier and I didn’t swear obedience to the President. I swore it to the Governor of PA. I’m a Guardsman, which means the Federal government has nothing to do with me. You know how oaths sound silly when every says their name at the same time? It’s doubly silly when all the Guardsmen being sworn in say the name of their state when saying “Governor of ”. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-loyalty-oath/483713/14 "2009-01-30T18:17:29Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Well, Sir, simply substitute \ for ‘God’ and soldier on. No charge for the advice, Sir…we all know officers can’t think for themselves. That’s why ‘God’ made NCO’s… Well, yes, I’m aware of that, but the law doesn’t appear to allow that. ‘So help me God’ is in the oath. [del]You do know that I’m not in[/del] Someday I will get jokes based on my handle more quickly. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-loyalty-oath/483713/15 "2009-01-30T18:20:06Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Carrot] Well, yes, I’m aware of that, but the law doesn’t appear to allow that. ‘So help me God’ is in the oath. [/QUOTE] True…but they can’t help what you think in your head, ehe? > [@](#): > > You do know that I’m not in Someday I will get jokes based on my handle more quickly. I figured. 😉 And I was not in the Army but in the Navy, so the whole soldier on thingy would have been slightly different as well. I was a Petty Officer (technical spec) though FWIW. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-loyalty-oath/483713/16 "2009-01-30T18:32:38Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > Nitpick: I’m a soldier and I didn’t swear obedience to the President. I swore it to the Governor of PA. I’m a Guardsman, which means the Federal government has nothing to do with me. > > You know how oaths sound silly when every says their name at the same time? It’s doubly silly when all the Guardsmen being sworn in say the name of their state when saying “Governor of ”. Yes you did. And the federal government has first dibs on you. The oath you (and I) swore: I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (STATE NAME) against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the \*\*\*President of the United States \*\*\*and the Governor of (STATE NAME) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God. > [@](#): > > Well, yes, I’m aware of that, but the law doesn’t appear to allow that. ‘So help me God’ is in the oath. The Army has a regulation for it. AR 601-210 states that last line can be omitted. > [@](#): > > Well, you’re out of luck. The oath can be changed – it’s simply an act of Congress. Congress could pass tomorrow an law that requires henceforth that all servicemembers swear to faithfully watch every Gilligan’s Island episode, and the President could sign it into law. For that matter, the Presidential oath itself could be changed to require the President to also watch the castaways, and if passed by two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states’ legislatures, it would be the new supreme law of the land. I said it with fewer words but it was right there in post #2. The answer to the OP is Obama can’t change it. The question was not if it can be changed by some other means. ---
**Author:** ![Count\_No\_Account](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/13edae/32.png) [@Count\_No\_Account](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Count_No_Account)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-loyalty-oath/483713/17 "2009-01-30T18:38:35Z")
“But, this, say many at the Defense Department, goes to far.” Learn too spell, satire-man. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-loyalty-oath/483713/18 "2009-01-30T18:41:00Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > So atheists can’t serve? What happens if a draftee refuses to take that oath? As noted above, an atheist or other person prohibited from conscience from swearing oaths may use the affirmation instead - the affirmation dispenses with the last line. ---
**Author:** ![NinjaChick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/71c47a/32.png) [@NinjaChick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NinjaChick)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-loyalty-oath/483713/19 "2009-01-30T18:46:51Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > Nitpick: I’m a soldier and I didn’t swear obedience to the President. I swore it to the Governor of PA. I’m a Guardsman, which means the Federal government has nothing to do with me. > > You know how oaths sound silly when every says their name at the same time? It’s doubly silly when all the Guardsmen being sworn in say the name of their state when saying “Governor of ”. Pointless nitpick: the Feds have everything to do with the DC Guard. Since the District has no governor, the President is the only one who can activate them. I’ve heard that the DC delegate to the House is agitating to award that power to the Mayor, but historically it rests with the President. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2009, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/soldiers-loyalty-oath/483713/20 "2009-01-30T19:19:23Z")
> [@NinjaChick](#): > > Pointless nitpick: the Feds have everything to do with the DC Guard. Since the District has no governor, the President is the only one who can activate them. I’ve heard that the DC delegate to the House is agitating to award that power to the Mayor, but historically it rests with the President. The Feds have a lot to do with all of the Guard. As I stated above, the oath is to the president and the governor for the guard. The federal government trumps the state. What most people don’t realize when they complain about the guard being sent overseas, the guard is the main reserve for combat troops in the military. The Army Reserves are primarily support troops. The National Guard has the armor, infantry, artillery and other front line units. The federal government pays a large portion of the budget for the guard. The state pays some. I won’t go into the details because it confuses me and I’ve been involved for 20 years. Some relevent laws: The National Defense Act of 1916: This act abandoned the idea of an expandable Regular Army and firmly established the traditional concept of the citizens’ army as the keystone of the United States defense forces. It established the concept of merging the National Guard, the Army Reserve, and the Regular Army into the Army of the United States in time of war. The act further expanded the National Guard’s role, and guaranteed the State militias’ status as the Army’s primary reserve force. The law mandated use of the term “National Guard” for that force, and the President was given authority, in case of war or national emergency, to mobilize the National Guard for the duration of the emergency. The number of yearly drills increased from 24 to 48 and annual training from five to 15 days. Drill pay was authorized for the first time. The Montgomery Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1987 provides that a governor cannot withhold consent with regard to active duty outside the United States because of any objection to the location, purpose, type, or schedule of such duty. This law was challenged and upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1990 in Perpich v. Department of Defense.) The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 Pub.L. 109-364 Federal law was changed in section 1076 so that the Governor of a state is no longer the sole commander in chief of their state’s National Guard during emergencies within the state. The President of the United States will now be able to take total control of a state’s National Guard units without the governor’s consent. In a letter to Congress all 50 governors opposed the increase in power of the president over the National Guard. The National Defense Authorization Act 2008 Pub.L. 110-181 Repeals provisions in section 1076 in Pub.L. 109-364 but still enables the President to call up the National Guard of the United States for active federal military service during Congressionally sanctioned national emergency or war. Places the National Guard Bureau directly under the Department of Defense as a joint activity. Promoted the Chief of the National Guard Bureau from a three-star to a four-star general. Above brought to you by wikipedia. My governor did not want the New Jersey Guard to go to Iraq. I’m in Iraq. Anyone who says they have nothing to do with the federal government because they are in the guard is misinformed.