Being Sworn, State That I Am At Least , And That On , , I Served The: Fill & Download for Free

Not sure where you got your information, but the US Army does not let just anyone with a college degree become an officer. A four-year degree is a prerequisite for commissioning, but that is all it is. The degree must be in a field of study that the Army considers to be useful for their purposes.Today, many enlisted personnel have four-year degrees (especially in Special Operations Forces).To be considered, one must satisfactorily meet the requirements of multiple physical and psychological screening exams.** Audiology testing during a MEPS (Military Entrance Processing Station) physical exam.Background checks are done by the FBI or those working for the FBI. You need to be able to qualify for at least a secret security clearance.There is a fairly intense interview by a board of officers and higher ranking enlisted personnel. You cannot just BS your way through this.Candidates must meet height and weight requirements. Many more people are obese today compared to just a few years ago. More than a few candidates are just too big.ASVAB (Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery) testing scores must be at a minimum level or higher. Applicants for Army OCS (Officer Candidate School) must score a minimum of 110 on the Army's GT Line Score of the ASVAB.A candidate must be willing to sacrifice all (up to and including one’s life) in the performance of your role as an officer. This is no small thing when you are actually swearing this oath.“I ___, 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” - Oath of Commissioned Officers** New Signal Corps Officer being sworn in.You have to be accepted by one of the 17 branch specialties within the Army (Armor, Aviation, Infantry, Field Artillery, Corps of Engineers…and so on). Some are smaller than others and do not require many officers.We used to joke with other cadets that, “it’s going to take an act of Congress to make you an officer”.After all, we do serve at the pleasure of the President.** US Army Commission

Here is how I answered the question in an earlier reply, based on my blog:5 U.S. Code § 3331 - Oath of Office“I, Clifford James Moore, do solemnly swear 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”During my 35-year career as a federal employee, I took the above oath of office on at least a dozen occasions as I moved through the legislative and executive branches of government. Several times as a Congressional employee (House and Senate), as political appointee under two presidents (Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush), and as a career federal employee in one agency (Action, the federal volunteer agency) and four cabinet departments (Transportation, Education--where I served under two Secretaries—Defense, and Veterans Affairs—where I served under four Secretaries).Every time I took the oath, whether it was in some small administrative office off a basement corridor in a 1930s-era bland brown building in downtown Washington, or just steps away from the gleaming U.S. Capitol, something deep down caused me to stand a bit taller, to focus keenly on the oath being administered, and to speak those words with a strong and affirming voice. No matter the venue, the words never changed, the object of the oath never changed: “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States.” It was never “I will support and defend the House of Representatives, or the Senate, or the Department of Defense, or the Department of Veterans Affairs.” Always it was, and remains, “The Constitution of the United States.”The person, or persons, who wrote the anonymous “Resistance” op-ed that appeared in the New York Times on Wednesday, September 5, also took that same oath. He or she (or they), did not swear (or affirm) allegiance to Donald J. Trump, or to the White House, or to the Executive Branch. They swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. I cannot say that enough. Their loyalty, to my way of thinking, was to the founding first-principles document that enumerates and vouchsafes every law under which our country operates, and all the liberties and rights therein. It cannot be made more clear. That is what the oath is all about.When I read the op-ed, my first inclination, to be honest, was “Good for you! It’s about time we heard from a senior insider who sees through the fog and smokescreens of the ongoing bizzaro-war within the walls of the White House, and who is taking up arms, manning the barricade, and making a noble stand. Vive la Anonymous!”But, after sleeping on the story, and re-reading the op-ed several times in the light of a new day, I began to doubt, question, and, finally, reverse my initial fist-pump rationale. The op-ed is not a commentary about what’s wrong at the White House. It is about the author’s (s’) loss of faith in the bigger picture of national service, and the writer’s (s’) unwillingness to let the Constitutional system of separation of powers do what it is supposed to do.I get why the author(s) feel like that. Twice during my federal career—once on the Hill, once in the executive branch, at VA—I ran into leaders whose operating principles so differed from my vision of what they were either elected or appointed to do, I submitted my resignations and walked away. In one instance, I simply left the Representative for whom I was working and accepted a new job in the Senate. In the other instance, I resigned from the civil service five years earlier than I’d planned, and, once back in civilian life, began writing signed editorials and blogs that reflected my concerns for the department and leadership I’d left behind.Now, it would be folly for me to suggest that my home-based editorial contribution to the larger national dialogue about my former department and its secretary moved the needle of importance in any meaningful way. But those editorials had what the New York Times op-ed did not: my name, my accountability, my ownership of each and every word. My decision to put my name on the columns I wrote was made with the Constitution and my oath in mind; I could not shoot at my boss or the department from behind bushes of anonymity while I was in service to the Constitution, and, thereby, to the country. But I could exercise my First Amendment right to speak freely about my concerns once I was no longer bound by my Constitutional oath.There is the argument that what the “Resistance” author(s) are up against is of far greater import and immediate danger than my microscopic problem at one federal agency. After all, there can be no question among reasonable people that president Trump’s White House is, in fact, “off the rails,” and careening toward a real and present danger of Constitutional, if not existential proportions. I understand that. And I understand how a person, or perhaps a network of people, who genuinely fears for the country’s stability, safety, and security at home and abroad, would find irresistible the temptation to try to either fix what is becoming more broken every day, or at least memorialize in an op-ed the spreading miasma of events in the hopes that the American people and their elected representatives in the legislative branch would rise to a call to action.The problem is, our system does not work that way, and it was never intended to. A thorough reading of Article II of the Constitution and all of the Federalist Papers will not uncover any permission for a federal employee—no matter how highly ranked (save the Vice President)—to assume the role of president-in-parallel.The oath any president takes is not the same as the oath civil servants take:"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,(so help me God)”vs.“I do solemnly swear 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”The Presidential Oath is spelled out in the Constitution in Article II, Section One, Clause 8. That clause, and that clause alone, contains the words, “…faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States…” Those words—Office of the President—don’t appear in the civil servant’s oath; the oath-bound duty of a civil servant is to “…bear true faith and allegiance to the same [the Constitution], and it is to that allegiance the writer or writers of the Anonymous Op-Ed must turn.You can argue that the phrase, “I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter,” as a sort of catch-all phrase that might give a sincerely worried civil servant the idea that he or she has tacit permission to go to extreme measures to fulfill their executive branch duties. That would be a mistake, and it is the mistake made by the Anonymous op-ed author(s). The civil servants’ oath does not confer any extraordinary powers above and beyond their stated duties. It does not give permission to act, even in extremis, in some sort of sub rosa presidential channel.When the Op-Ed says, “I work for the president, but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations,” the writer is placing their cherry-picked “vow” of immediacy above their original Constitutional oath. This is not permissible in a nation of laws executed by men and women whose voluntary oaths bend their public actions toward, not away from, the Constitution they are sworn to uphold. In short, civil servants cannot serve two masters—or, in this case, two oaths--simultaneously. It is not, as president Trump barks, in all caps, “TREASON?,” but it is at the very least, unethical to play two sides of the Constitution—an anonymous application of the First Amendment leveraged against a subversion of a Constitutional oath—at the same time.So what are the remedies available to writers like Anonymous who, in their judgement, perceive threats to national security, public safety, or sound policy development being ignored or subverted by a president they believe is irrational at worst, or simply incapable of sound management of the office of the president?If the writer is truly a senior administration official, he or she must first memorialize the president’s transgressions by taking contemporaneous notes, supported by evidence or by being able to point to evidence (and not by removing or withholding evidence); as the evidence accumulates, the official has an obligation as part of the duties of his or her office, to bring their concerns to the attention of superiors, or, if none can be trusted, to legal government counsel (an inspector general, for example, if not White House counsel); and, finally, if the senior official truly feels he or she has run out of options within the White House (or within their department), and they continue to believe the country is being led toward a crisis, they must resign their office and then, and only then, write their op-ed and sign it.My opinion is informed by my own special lodestar, Sir Thomas More, whose refusal to obey what he believed to be an unlawful and immoral order—to swear, in writing, his allegiance to Henry VIII as head of the church of England—lead to his beheading in 1535. More had been given many opportunities to express his views on the righteousness of Henry’s various schemes to outwit the Catholic church’s edicts against Henry’s marriage to Anne Boleyn. In every case, More, while willing to accept Anne’s legitimacy, and having no problem as an English citizen in pledging loyalty to the Crown, could not extend that oath to acknowledging Henry as the head of a church-of-moral-convenience. In the end, it was what More would not sign that did him in.In a stirringly dramatized scene in the 1966 movie, A Man For All Seasons, More, played by Paul Scofield, admonishes William Roper for Roper’s advice that the traitorous Richard Rich be arrested. More, the target of Rich’s treachery, does not agree that Rich’s arrest would be lawful, even though More knows full well that Rich is working against him. Roper, furious, accuses More of being too righteous to act against Rich, and in this particular scene in the movie, More makes clear his unyielding affection for the law of the land:WILLIAM ROPER: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!SIR THOMAS MORE: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?ROPER: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!MORE: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!The author or authors of the New York Times op-ed have, in my opinion, an obligation to resign from their Constitutionally-pledged office and, if they have the moral and ethical courage, acknowledge their written work. There is no shame in being a dissenter, and, as I learned from my own act of resignation five years ago, there is a certain moral power that fills the void left behind.It is likely that there is still more of the Devil in the White House than any one man or woman—or network of men and women—can battle behind the scenes. It is also likely that one, two, or even a dozen resignations, will not dissuade Trump from his determined path toward social and political chaos.Should the system come crashing down, should all norms crumble, should the nation be catapulted into a crisis deeper than we can currently imagine, I believe the Constitution will hold fast to the center and that the lawful process of corrections—the application of the ballot box against tyranny—must be allowed to play out.

I am asking and answering this question because I imagine there are a lot of questions. I will provide some basic information. You may feel free to comment with more questions or ask separately and I will do my best to answer them.Bill Cosby was sentenced to 3-10 years. He could have been sentenced to 30 years, but the prosecution agreed to combine the crimes, creating a maximum of 10 years. The judge stayed within the sentencing guidelines.The prosecution asked for 5–10. The defense asked for house arrest.Cosby was found to be a sexually violent predator. Once the judge made that ruling, incarceration was all but inevitable. Once Cosby is out of prison, he will have to have monthly therapy. He will be required to report where he lives and for neighbors to be warned. This is under Pennsylvania’s Megan’s law to which the link connects.Cosby will be serving his time in state prison. The judge could have put him in county jail but decided against it. State prison is seen as a more severe punishment.He was taken from the court to jail, he will be processed there and then taken to prison.There will be an appeal, but Cosby was not allowed bail pending the appeal. The judge researched the issue and found that the crimes were too serious to allow bail.There are no doubt many grounds the defense will claim for appeal. But Cosby will remain in prison unless the verdict is reversed. If the verdict is reversed he could be released on bail or not, pending a retrial or plea bargain. That is up to the PA Superior Court and then the PA Supreme Court, if it gets that far.I do not know how long Cosby will have to serve. At least 3 years, but it is up to the Parole board, in the end. He could easily serve half or more of his sentence of 10 years.There is a special prison in Pennsylvania for elderly and infirm people. Sandusky is there (the man who molested myriad boys when he was at Penn State). I imagine Cosby will end up there. But perhaps not. There are facilities in many Pennsylvania prisons for the elderly and infirm, so it isn’t necessary.A large part of the judge's decision was based on Andrea Constand's victim impact statement. The judge specifically said he heard her. Here is Constand's statement https://www.vox.com/…/andrea-constand-bill-cosby-victim-imp…Once the sentencing statement is available, I will share it and any additional analysis that I take from it.As far as how this all happened, I answered a question on that previously. You can find that answer here: Jennifer Ellis's answer to How is the conviction of Bill Cosby at all legal? I could have sworn I read/heard/saw that his confessed deposition was given after being promised somewhat of an immunity. Was that false? What proof had they to convict him outside that statement?Jennifer Ellis's answer to Is Bill Cosby likely to be out on bail pending appeal? Does he have any good appealable issues?