Presidential oath of office:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:— “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.”

Other oaths:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. 

Specific, explicit oath is provided for President.  Guidelines only provided for other officers.

Does the term in the phrase "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" refer only to the text written on four pieces of parchment?!  No.  The "constitution" of the United States is everything of which the United States consists.

Consider the following complaint in the Declaration of Independence:

He has sent swarms of officers here to harass our people and eat out their substance.

The "constitution" of the United States can be read as the substance of the United States, having nothing to do with the text on 4 pieces of parchment in the late 1700's, except that the oath of office (as I read it) requires the President to protect that substance - not the document itself.  The person holding the office swears to observe the constitution in a way that protects the actual real substance of the United States, which is its people.  Only "We the People" are real.

The oath of office taken by Sheriffs came up around 5 to 6 minutes.  And again around 30 minutes.

The language in the Constitution related to oaths taken by officers other than President is not specific.  I think Sheriff Mac has it right.

I think Mark is right.  Federalist Paper 78 is one where Judicial power is discussed.  There may be others.

Courts can legitimately strike down unconstitutional measures.

They are not supposed to legislate as Roberts did recently when he declared penalties in Obamacare to be taxes.  The legislation said it was a penalty.  The court could only say, "Calling it a penalty is constitutional." Or, "Calling it a penalty is not constitutional."  It is not supposed to re-write legislation.  When it does, that ruling is not supposed to be given the force of law, other than the parties affected.

Robert's ruling was given the force of law with no modification of the challenged legislation, to my knowledge.

This situation violates separation of powers and the supremacy clause.  Constitution, duly passed legislation, and treaties are supreme law and apply to everyone.  Court rulings are binding on those who are parties to the suit.  They are not applicable to everyone.  They are not supreme law.

Who is supposed to enforce the 10th amendment?

Mark said the courts.  I disagree.  The people are supposed to.  How can the people enforce what they don't know about?!  Hopefully, enforcement officers will stay within legislated bounds, and legislators will stay in Constitutional bounds.  If legislators and/or enforcement officers stray outside Constitutional bounds, hopefully the courts will intervene in alignment with the Constitution.

If not?  What is the check against that?!

Ramble mode off.

DC Treybil