According to Florida Form DSDE56 every elected, appointed, and many hired state employees pledge their allegiance to “…the Constitution and Government of the United States and of the State of Florida…”. Read that again: “…and Government…”? Therein lays the crux of the issue.
First, how does one swear an oath to a government—a government that is formed and controlled by a Constitution which is written by the people to empower the government, as their agent, to act on their behalf and to their benefit? In math this might be called a ‘circular reference’--a series of references where the last object references the first, resulting in a closed loop. In other words, an unsolvable assertion using a chain of logic wrapped around itself.
Or, perhaps, it could be just so confusing in its sentence structure, that it doesn’t even make sense: does the sworn official owe allegiance to the government of the United States and the government of Florida, or is it just referencing the United States Government? And what if the US Government and the Florida Government have a difference of opinion, which one takes precedence? While it may appear safe to assume the oath may mean to include the State Constitution even that may be open to question.
An oath to a national and state constitution is understandable because the state constitution is based on the U.S. Constitution and simply expands the first to include specific state issues. However, when ‘government’, which is formed by the Constitution, is thrown into the equation, the whole thing falls apart. The oath states ‘…and Government…’ not “…or Government…’. “Or Government” might give the oath taker an option. “And Government” makes the situation impossible, like serving two masters. In this case, depending on how you read it, it could be as many as FOUR masters!
What happens when, as it often does, the government acts outside the Constitution in executing laws or issuing executive orders? Which part of the oath do our officials obey, the Constitution or the government? And which government—the State or the Federal? Do they get to pick and choose depending on which option suits them?
If the oath is illogical, how can it be enforced? And if it cannot be enforced, how do the citizens hold a sworn official responsible for his actions? If no official (who cannot now be an “official”) can be held responsible for his actions, how can any of his actions be ‘official’? And if no officer’s actions are official, they cannot be enforced, thereby rendering every decision, every judicial finding, every legislative action, every regulation, every contract, everything done by every official, is rendered null and void.
All prisoners must be immediately released and may now sue for restitution—if they can find a licensed attorney or legitimate judge to hear their case. We have no more law enforcement, no judges or county officials, no state representatives, no governor, and no attorney general, no one who can represent us in an official capacity until this issue is resolved. Chaos reigns!
Unless, of course we all subscribe to the “words can mean different things to different people at different times, depending on what definition benefits whom” coalition: i.e. It depends on what the meaning of “is” is.
And in that case, we’re just fine. Welcome to Wonderland!