- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 34,817
- Reaction score
- 18,576
- Location
- Look to your right... I'm that guy.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Good post!I think the real answer to your theoretical questions is 'it depends on who would come out on top.' History is kind to victors.
In reality, to justify overthrowing a government would require not just a violation of the constitution or even repeated violations, it would require that the constitution itself...our form of government was under attack and at risk of destruction from 'enemies foreign and domestic.'
The crazies on the right like to hype up constitutional violations, real or perceived, as some kind of equivalent attack. It is far from it and something that we've never seen, or have any reason to believe is on the horizon near or far.
Also, some on here have indicated that not following unlawful orders is the same as protecting the constitution. It is not. Similarly, following lawful orders is not part of supporting and defending the constitution. One could, for example, be given a lawful order that violates the constitution or vice versa. In this case, the constitution would be the supreme authority. Soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines aren't expected or empowered to interpret the constitution, that is why their oath includes following the orders of the POTUS and officers appointed over them. It provides some cover to enlisted should they follow orders from the POTUS and/or officers that violates the constitution, whereas officers and the POTUS have no such cover. Lawful orders are simply orders that are in compliance with law.
Good post!
I might only quibble with the idea that the Constitution isn't under attack. I don't think it's a coordinated effort by any means, but I do think that all the relatively small-ish violations, when added up, give a disturbing result.
You seem to only be able to recall part of the oath we swore.... "and I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Officers appointed over me...."
The part about lawful orders is covered in the last part.... "according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice..."
The devil in this is defining 'truly fighting to preserve the Constitution...'
While our Government has supported many coups overseas I see them as bad form in CONUS.
I'd say the Military needs to sit out any political struggle. This can be what-if'd to death but we are no where near any serious need for tanks to roll in our streets...
You really think I can't recall that was in the oath? Let me get this straight: You think that soldiers who have sworn to both uphold the constitution and obey the orders of those appointed above them, should always choose orders over the constitution if those two come in conflict? Really? To you soldiers are just mindless automotons who should follow every order no matter how horrific, and should never question the constitutionality of their actions? Are you one of those people with no beliefs or back-bone? Or do you just expect all of our soldiers to be?
What I REALLY think is you need to take a chill pill Bill!
YOU are making this an all or nothing thing between the Constitution or the LAWFULLY elected POTUS, LAWFULLY appointed Officers in command. Your rhetoric is not helpful... no one says MINDLESS anything, just MINDFUL of the conditions under which WE WHO HAVE TAKEN THE OATH are to operate.
I am not impressed by those who make all or nothing conditions. Not over impressed by those who think the refinement of our society somehow is an attack on the Constitution. This is a CIVILIAN controlled Republic not a Militarily managed one. The series of events that would have to happen for the military to intervene is way beyond anything we have seen and would mean the republic is no more and a tyrant- a REAL tyrant not a Faux Noise tyrant- has seized power. Frankly crap like the so-called Patriot Act, 2nd A, Immigration and whatever else the ranters can point to as an attack on the Constitution MUST be handled by the civilians or there is no one for the Military to 'save' the Constitution for! :doh
What I am is one of those who took the oath and now have scars to prove both my beliefs and backbone. :2wave:
My BELIEF is those NOT in the Military must show some BACKBONE if they think the Constitution is under attack. The Military is to protect the nation from violence, not resolve political issues.
Those who try and make the current push-pull over political issues into some 'attack' are just civilians who are wussing out and want 'someone else' to fix it for them- of course in a way THEY think is best but not over eager to do much to make it so.
That clear it up for ya????
The president doesn't have the authority to change laws at will, nor the authority to decide which laws will be enforced and which ones won't. That's a violation of the Constitution.
The president does have discretion in how or if a law will be enforced. The president is under NO obligation to enforce ANY law they believe to be unconstitutional.
No, it didn't clear anything up, because I already understood what you believed. The question was simple: Is there ever a scenario where the military would be justified in a coup, in order to protect the constitution. Your belief is that no, there isn't, and they should sit idly; mine is that if that scenario were to present itself, yes they would be justified. You claimed that because "obey your leaders" was in the same oath with "protect the constitution", that soldiers must put obedience over the constitution, which is plain false and frankly cowardly. You seem to be caught up in thinking that we think this should happen NOW, which is ridiculous. If that "lawfully elected" politician is making large enough attacks on the constitution, he is no longer a lawfully elected politician, plain and simple.
So to summarize my position:
- Yes, there could be a scenario where the military would be justified in a coup to protect the constitution. I think it's sad and short sighted that you think no such scenario could ever exist.
You really think I can't recall that was in the oath? Let me get this straight: You think that soldiers who have sworn to both uphold the constitution and obey the orders of those appointed above them, should always choose orders over the constitution if those two come in conflict? Really? To you soldiers are just mindless automotons who should follow every order no matter how horrific, and should never question the constitutionality of their actions?
Are you one of those people with no beliefs or back-bone? Or do you just expect all of our soldiers to be?
Ignorance. They're more educated than the average person.
Ah yes. The Military. "200 years of tradition uninterrupted by progress."
its nice to be back at the "normal" state where most liberals are comfortable expressing their hatred towards the military. Sucks when you have to pretend to support them.Ah yes. The Military. "200 years of tradition uninterrupted by progress."
The Constitution doesn't allow the president to change, or refuse to enforce the law.
What I don't get about this post is, again (and seemingly forever on this board) is the ostensible religiosity involved: soldiers are just mindless automatons who would do horrific things if not for the Constitution to guide them? I don't get why some people confuse the Constitution with some holy book. Seriously, just replace the Constitution with the Bible in your post and the tenor remains basically the same.
Good things can come from ideas and concepts outside of the Constitution. And just because something is in the Constitution doesn't mean it's good. Stop worshiping this thing, it's getting kinda weird.
It most certainly allows the president to refuse to enforce the law its unconstitutional. The oath of office is quite clear on that, which is in the constitution.
No, the military is under oath to defend the Constitution but unlike what many people think that doesn't mean their personal interpretation of the Constitution. .
its nice to be back at the "normal" state where most liberals are comfortable expressing their hatred towards the military. Sucks when you have to pretend to support them.
The military as an entity has been very 'progressive'. It's populated by a majority of citizens willing to serve and in many cases put themselves in the line of fire for civilians. Do we have some turds? Sure...the military isn't immune to the dregs of society.
Let me guess...you think colleges are the bastion of culture and progress in modern society...right?
i think the founding fathers were knowlegable enough to study the effects of the english civil war, mainly the failed attempt at creating a republican government to replace king charles the first. that republic became a millitary dictatorship under Oliver cromwell.
cromwell is a example of why we do not want military dictatorships.
It's no longer in vogue to respect our servicemen.
If the military swears an oath to uphold the Constitution...
...does that mean they would be legitimately justified in staging a coup and overthrowing the government?
well...at least they aren't back to openly calling us baby killers yet.....
If the military swears an oath to uphold the Constitution...
...does that mean they would be legitimately justified in staging a coup and overthrowing the government?
It's no longer in vogue to respect our servicemen.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?