It certainly lays the groundwork.
Visit the Archives for U.S. Politics Online -- U.S. Politics Online . net
I understand that it is possible to have unlawful orders issued by superiors, but disobeying unlawful orders is far from license to revolt or take up arms against the government.
It certainly lays the groundwork.
While the oath may not be binding to this group and they chose to only honor part of it. Then just where do they stand, do they have their own oath, do they have their own COC. If not, then they are not much more then a rag-tag group. What happens if part of the group takes action on what they feel is a real threat and the other part takes a different direction. That's where the problems can come from and they are doomed to fail or cause some rela headachs. IMHO
The only procedure by which the constitution allows the president to be forcefully removed is impeachment.
You don't feel any loyalty toward the president? It seems you are in violation of the principals/spirit of the oath.
That is unless you see the president as an enemy of the United States, in which case I would see your point of view, but still consider it incorrect.
This group is another right wing terrorist organization that should defiantely be placed on any terrorist watch lists, denied firearms ownership rights or rights of international travel. They are advocating terroristic extremist actions. They are criminals.
This government has not violated the constitution the way tyhe criminal George Bush has done. If anythign the Obama government has upheld more of the constitution and more of the US laws than Bush ever did in 8 years under his regime.
Last edited by Rahmota; 10-19-2009 at 12:25 PM.
Please point out exactly WHAT "terroristic extremist actions" they are advocating.
While you're at it, please explain under what authority the government can deny the right to keep and be armed as well as the right to travel on mere suspicion.
This isn't the USSR Rahmota. We don't restrict people's right to travel in this country.
Guns don't kill people. Dads with beautiful daughters kill people.
All that said, your stance is contradictory...
At this point, the oath applies to you only in principal. But one of those principals is that the president's orders are to be obeyed. To an active duty soldier, that implies loyalty to the president (unless as you say the orders are unlawful in which case the soldier has a right not to follow them). If you say you still subscribe to the principals of the oath, then that loyalty should still be there unless the president has ordered you to do something unlawful.... or if you consider him to be an enemy of the country.
Again, even if the president does something unconstitutional, it is not enough to justify armed revolution..... Even if something he did was seen universally as unconstitutional.
And even if "defending the constitution against all enemies" meant gunning down anyone who violated it.....according to the oath, it would be up to the actual people bound to the oath (the U.S. active duty Armed Forces) to uphold the oath. Someone acting in "principal" would be summarily out of line.
All this begs the question: Do you feel that the president has done something unconstitutional?
It's not at all difficult to wrap my civilian head around. You want to stand by the oath you took until you can make up a good enough reason not to. It's not the calll of the individual soldier as to whether the President is acting unconstitutionally, that's given to the SCOTUS and the the Congress. That's one of the main reasons impeachment procedures are IN the Constitution, so that this matter of whether your duty is to the man or the document is clear. You CANNOT violate one without violating the other.