3
3
0
Should the oath of enlistment be changed to "...and the lawful orders of the officers appointed over me."? I know some people would say it is implied but it seems an important detail to me.
Posted in these groups: 
Oath
Oath
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
4
4
0
I don't particularly think it needs to change, but as Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS mentioned, if it does change it should mirror the Officer's Oath.
There is some historical reason for the differences, but with the advances of our enlisted men and women that is significantly more subtle and the time for blindly following orders has at the very least significantly diminished.
There is some historical reason for the differences, but with the advances of our enlisted men and women that is significantly more subtle and the time for blindly following orders has at the very least significantly diminished.
(4)
(0)
1
1
0
The only difference I see is that if the order is unlawful it not only does not have to be obeyed , but it should be reported to CoC and IG for investigation.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Hi, Senior.
I've often thought that, too, although I hope that "lawful orders," like you said, would be implied.
I've often thought that, too, although I hope that "lawful orders," like you said, would be implied.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
"If" we were to change it, it should be changed to exactly mirror the Officers/VP/Senate Oath.
Swearing to follow the orders of the President et al, is quite frankly unnecessary, as the Constitution establishes our default Chain of Command.
Swearing to follow the orders of the President et al, is quite frankly unnecessary, as the Constitution establishes our default Chain of Command.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
The enlistment oath should not be changed. My opinion is this: NOTHING should be implied.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google