• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Military protocol question

Shrink726

The tolerant left? I'm the intolerant left.
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 11, 2020
Messages
2,798
Reaction score
4,754
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Question for those who have served in the military: If a dishonorable president were to declare martial law with the obvious intention of subverting the peaceful transfer of power, to whom or what do you owe allegiance...the Commander in Chief or the Constitution? The oath you took demands you obey both!
 
Question for those who have served in the military: If a dishonorable president were to declare martial law with the obvious intention of subverting the peaceful transfer of power, to whom or what do you owe allegiance...the Commander in Chief or the Constitution? The oath you took demands you obey both!
The oath demands that you obey the Constitution first. And lawful orders from the President and officers appointed over. Just like you can refuse to obey an unlawful order from a person in your chain of command ("go get my coffee cup from lower level" is an example of not a lawful order). "Shoot into that crowd" is not a lawful order either in most cases for the military, particularly within the US itself (unless we are talking zombie apocalypse or something far worse than a not-really-fraudulent election.

I will give you a personal example. I was on the Lincoln when Bush came aboard for the now infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech. While he is an air guy, it was rumored that he might come down to tour the Reactor spaces because some of those with him wanted to see them. So all watchstanders got briefed on how to handle the President coming into your space, onto your watchstation. Because of how critical our systems are, and how many viewed Bush (not exactly seen as the brightest bulb), they reminded everyone that he nor anyone with him were allowed to touch any of our equipment. They even specifically pointed out for those controlling the actual reactor that while the President was certainly allowed to come up to the panel, and we could answer questions regarding Rx operations in general, they were to stop him if he went to touch any knobs/buttons on any panel. They were also told that yes, this would probably get them tackled by Secret Service, but that part of their job was making sure no one but them touched the actual Reactor controls. We also were not to take any sort of orders from the President regarding plant operation. Proper chain of command was still through our watch standing team leadership. Even he has to go through that chain of command.
 
Question for those who have served in the military: If a dishonorable president were to declare martial law with the obvious intention of subverting the peaceful transfer of power, to whom or what do you owe allegiance...the Commander in Chief or the Constitution? The oath you took demands you obey both!

The Oath is actually pretty clear. The US Military swears an oath to the Constitution, first and foremost. A President issuing unconstitutional orders is a President giving orders that the US Armed Forces aren't legally allowed to follow.
 
Question for those who have served in the military: If a dishonorable president were to declare martial law with the obvious intention of subverting the peaceful transfer of power, to whom or what do you owe allegiance...the Commander in Chief or the Constitution? The oath you took demands you obey both!
The oath taken by officers (and Federal civil service) does not reference the President, only the Constitution.
 
Question for those who have served in the military: If a dishonorable president were to declare martial law with the obvious intention of subverting the peaceful transfer of power, to whom or what do you owe allegiance...the Commander in Chief or the Constitution? The oath you took demands you obey both!

As a former officer, look at the officers oath... The commander in chief is not mentioned. There is a reason why the officers oath is different.
 
The military owes its allegiance to the US Constitution, and will not accept unconstitutional orders from Trump or his toadies.

Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley has made this clear in his comments.
 
Question for those who have served in the military: If a dishonorable president were to declare martial law with the obvious intention of subverting the peaceful transfer of power, to whom or what do you owe allegiance...the Commander in Chief or the Constitution? The oath you took demands you obey both!
The military is required to obey lawful orders.

Whether the Officer/Soldier agrees with the order or not is irrelevant. They must look at whether the order is lawful or not.

Now...even though you don't mention it in your post, we know you are referring to Trump possibly using the Insurrection Act to take control of the voting machines, all records and data that relate to the election in all 50 states and conducting an in-depth investigation into possible voter fraud. This has nothing to do with "the peaceful transfer of power" (regardless your claims of "obvious intention") and it is perfectly legal and within the constraints of the law AND the Constitution.

Therefore, Officers/Soldiers MUST follow the orders given.
 
Now...even though you don't mention it in your post, we know you are referring to Trump possibly using the Insurrection Act to take control of the voting machines, all records and data that relate to the election in all 50 states and conducting an in-depth investigation into possible voter fraud. This has nothing to do with "the peaceful transfer of power" (regardless your claims of "obvious intention") and it is perfectly legal and within the constraints of the law AND the Constitution.

Therefore, Officers/Soldiers MUST follow the orders given.

Ah, I thought the OP was referring to the 2022 election. Since I have declared that any conservatives who win congressional seats in 2022 did so only through means of extensive fraud, and we all clearly agree on that because it was simply stated as a fact up front, I figure the OP wanted to make sure that then-President Biden in 2022 can use the Insurrection Act to take control of all voting machines, records and data related to the 2022 election and be able to conduct an in-depth investigation into possible (let's face it--likely) voter fraud. I'm glad that we're all of like mind that it will be OK for him to do so.
 
The military is required to obey lawful orders.

Whether the Officer/Soldier agrees with the order or not is irrelevant. They must look at whether the order is lawful or not.

Now...even though you don't mention it in your post, we know you are referring to Trump possibly using the Insurrection Act to take control of the voting machines, all records and data that relate to the election in all 50 states and conducting an in-depth investigation into possible voter fraud. This has nothing to do with "the peaceful transfer of power" (regardless your claims of "obvious intention") and it is perfectly legal and within the constraints of the law AND the Constitution.

Therefore, Officers/Soldiers MUST follow the orders given.
It is more likely about him declaring M.L, and if he did is it legal for what he is trying to do,
If he is Declaring M.L. so he can stay in power and not let the Legal President take over then it is an illegal act and his orders should NOT be followed
Have a nice day
 
The military is required to obey lawful orders.

Whether the Officer/Soldier agrees with the order or not is irrelevant. They must look at whether the order is lawful or not.

Now...even though you don't mention it in your post, we know you are referring to Trump possibly using the Insurrection Act to take control of the voting machines, all records and data that relate to the election in all 50 states and conducting an in-depth investigation into possible voter fraud. This has nothing to do with "the peaceful transfer of power" (regardless your claims of "obvious intention") and it is perfectly legal and within the constraints of the law AND the Constitution.

Therefore, Officers/Soldiers MUST follow the orders given.
No they dont if such use of the act is unconstitutional
 
Ah, I thought the OP was referring to the 2022 election.
There won't be any "peaceful transition of power" in 2022.

You are dismissed.
 
The military is required to obey lawful orders.

Whether the Officer/Soldier agrees with the order or not is irrelevant. They must look at whether the order is lawful or not.

Now...even though you don't mention it in your post, we know you are referring to Trump possibly using the Insurrection Act to take control of the voting machines, all records and data that relate to the election in all 50 states and conducting an in-depth investigation into possible voter fraud. This has nothing to do with "the peaceful transfer of power" (regardless your claims of "obvious intention") and it is perfectly legal and within the constraints of the law AND the Constitution.

Therefore, Officers/Soldiers MUST follow the orders given.
Those things are not within the jurisdiction or right of the military to do. That would be called out by Congress and stopped before the military was allowed to touch a single piece of voting equipment. There are likely already lawyers for Congress waiting for such a stupid order to come down so they can immediately slap it with an injunction and Congress can work on impeaching Trump again before he can even make it out of office on his own.
 
It is more likely about him declaring M.L, and if he did is it legal for what he is trying to do,
If he is Declaring M.L. so he can stay in power and not let the Legal President take over then it is an illegal act and his orders should NOT be followed
Have a nice day
Then you (and any relevant Officers/Soldiers) will have to wait for the justification given for declaring martial law. (instead of pre-judging motivation based on speculation)
 
No they dont if such use of the act is unconstitutional
Believe me, Officers/Soldiers will be very careful when considering whether to disobey an order. It WON'T be based on some TDS-motivated belief that the order is unconstitutional. (That is...if they value their freedom and their career. People go to jail for not obeying a direct order.)
 
There won't be any "peaceful transition of power" in 2022.

You are dismissed.

Not true, congressional positions are also of some authority and I'm sure we are in agreement with each other that the extensive fraud by conservatives in 2022 must be investigated. Whew, undismissed! I don't know why others rag on you so much, I personally agree with your views.
 
Believe me, Officers/Soldiers will be very careful when considering whether to disobey an order. It WON'T be based on some TDS-motivated belief that the order is unconstitutional. (That is...if they value their freedom and their career. People go to jail for not obeying a direct order.)
I assure you generals will.not be issuing orders under the insurrection act unless they are certain its legal. They risk courts martial. Better to do nothing and let courts Duke it out unless lives are in danger
 
I assure you generals will.not be issuing orders under the insurrection act unless they are certain its legal. They risk courts martial. Better to do nothing and let courts Duke it out unless lives are in danger
Thank you. This is essentially precisely what I just said...except, they won't be waiting for the courts. They will be consulting their JAG.
 
Believe me, Officers/Soldiers will be very careful when considering whether to disobey an order. It WON'T be based on some TDS-motivated belief that the order is unconstitutional. (That is...if they value their freedom and their career. People go to jail for not obeying a direct order.)
The President would have to give any such orders to the military via the Joint Chiefs. The chances are that they would let Trump know right away what he can and can't do, and this is something they would very likely tell him would have to go through Congress or SCOTUS, as it involves a domestic issue.

 
Thank you. This is essentially precisely what I just said...except, they won't be waiting for the courts. They will be consulting their JAG.
And their JAG will say do nothing until the courts resolve it unless lives are in danger
 
Now...even though you don't mention it in your post, we know you are referring to Trump possibly using the Insurrection Act to take control of the voting machines, all records and data that relate to the election in all 50 states and conducting an in-depth investigation into possible voter fraud.

The Insurrection Act is for rebellions and revolts, not allegations of election fraud.
 
The President would have to give any such orders to the military via the Joint Chiefs. The chances are that they would let Trump know right away what he can and can't do, and this is something they would very likely tell him would have to go through Congress or SCOTUS, as it involves a domestic issue.

You are correct about the JCS. You are speculating about what they would "very likely tell him".
 
The military is required to obey lawful orders.

Whether the Officer/Soldier agrees with the order or not is irrelevant. They must look at whether the order is lawful or not.

Now...even though you don't mention it in your post, we know you are referring to Trump possibly using the Insurrection Act to take control of the voting machines, all records and data that relate to the election in all 50 states and conducting an in-depth investigation into possible voter fraud. This has nothing to do with "the peaceful transfer of power" (regardless your claims of "obvious intention") and it is perfectly legal and within the constraints of the law AND the Constitution.

Therefore, Officers/Soldiers MUST follow the orders given.
Declaring martial law and seizing the voting machines, staying in power despite the fact biden is legally the president elect, is unlawful and can be rightfully ignored. The military would have a duty to ignore his orders, and arrest him on the spot.
 
The Insurrection Act is for rebellions and revolts, not allegations of election fraud.
You should have told President Lincoln about that. I'm sure he would have wanted to know.

After the Civil War, the Insurrection Act was further amended to give the president authority to enforce the 14th Amendment and the conditions of Reconstruction in the South. That authority is now found in Section 253 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which gives the president the right to take military action within a state when “any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection.”

I'm thinking election fraud falls smack dab in the middle of Section 253.
 
Back
Top Bottom