Thread: Oathkeepers

Originally Posted by TheLastBoyScout

okay, but that's far from license to revolt or take up arms against the government.

If the President begins to operate outside of the US Constitution, US servicemen are duty bound to: "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"

It certainly lays the groundwork.

Originally Posted by TheLastBoyScout

Well if the specific principals of the oath are truly followed by the militia, I doubt they'll ever have legitimate reason to revolt.

I disagree. The Republic comes before the President. To be totally honest, I don't feel any loyalty towards the current President.

Originally Posted by Andrewl

I get the feeling this is all rather partisan. They would not refuse to obey the same hypothetical orders coming from a republican presidency.

Andrew

I can assure you that, if something like this were to happen, the people I served with really couldn;t really give a fuck what letter is next to a President's name...

Originally Posted by TheLastBoyScout

Where does it say that? The oath is directed at a soldier's actions.




Well, in principal, but not in an official capacity. The content of the oath matters because it makes specific reference to conditions of active duty. If you are no longer active duty, then you aren't violating the oath if you don't follow orders from ranking officers or the president.

A military oath is much like the Oath of Office in that it is directed toward the term or time period in which the person serves.

I've been retired for almost 14 years and still stand behind this oath.
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

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

If the President begins to operate outside of the US Constitution, US servicemen are duty bound to: "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"

It certainly lays the groundwork.

Not really. To bridge the gap between what the oath says and presidential assassination, one would have to be able to make a case that the president an enemy of the United States. Demonstrating that the president did something unconstitutional is not enough.

The only procedure by which the constitution allows the president to be forcefully removed is impeachment.

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

I disagree. The Republic comes before the President. To be totally honest, I don't feel any loyalty towards the current President.

Of course the republic comes before the president.

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.

Originally Posted by TheLastBoyScout

Not really. To bridge the gap between what the oath says and presidential assassination, one would have to be able to make a case that the president an enemy of the United States. Demonstrating that the president did something unconstitutional is not enough.

Yes, really. We are also sworn to protect and defend the Constitution in that oath. By violating the US Constitution he violates the document we are sworn to defend. Assuming that he has the rest of the government behind him (which I find unlikely), or enough to sanction whatever unconstitutional action he is taking, that would be more than enough.

Originally Posted by TheLastBoyScout

The only procedure by which the constitution allows the president to be forcefully removed is impeachment.

Yet if the Pres has the rest (or a good chunck) of the government behind him that door is shut and leaves only one option left. Not saying this is the case now, but simply illustrating a scenario in which such violent action would be called for.

Originally Posted by TheLastBoyScout

Of course the republic comes before the president.

You don't feel any loyalty toward the president? It seems you are in violation of the principals 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.

No violation here, but I understand how this is difficult for a civilian to wrap his/her head around. I am loyal to the Republic and I believe the Pres is a danger to that Republic. So far the government appears to be willing to fight him and keep him in check.

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.

Originally Posted by Rahmota

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 travel. They are advocating terroristic extremist actions. They are criminals.

Really?

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.

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

Yes, really. We are also sworn to protect and defend the Constitution in that oath. By violating the US Constitution he violates the document we are sworn to defend. Assuming that he has the rest of the government behind him (which I find unlikely), or enough to sanction whatever unconstitutional action he is taking, that would be more than enough.



Yet if the Pres has the rest (or a good chunck) of the government behind him that door is shut and leaves only one option left. Not saying this is the case now, but simply illustrating a scenario in which such violent action would be called for.



No violation here, but I understand how this is difficult for a civilian to wrap his/her head around. I am loyal to the Republic and I believe the Pres is a danger to that Republic. So far the government appears to be willing to fight him and keep him in check.

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?

Originally Posted by Rahmota

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.

I'm sorry, it was difficult to hear you over the din of "blahblahblahblahblah"...

Originally Posted by TheLastBoyScout

All this begs the question: Do you feel that the president has done something unconstitutional?

I believe he is in the process of trying to pull off something unconstitutional, yes. And that he has the support of many members of congress. Taken with his rhetoric about the direction he would like to take the country in, I believe this man is a danger to the Republic. What he is attempting to do is, IMO, unlawful and goes against the Republic. He has lost my loyalty. So far the political area seems the best place to fight him and his ilk. That, however, may not always be the case.

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

I believe he is in the process of trying to pull off something unconstitutional, yes. And that he has the support of many members of congress. Taken with his rhetoric about the direction he would like to take the country in, I believe this man is a danger to the Republic. What he is attempting to do is, IMO, unlawful and goes against the Republic. He has lost my loyalty. So far the political area seems the best place to fight him and his ilk. That, however, may not always be the case.

So what are you referring to as "in the process of pulling off something unconstitutional"?

Health Care Reform? Another Stimulus package? Changing the rates of the graduated income tax?

Originally Posted by TheLastBoyScout

So what are you referring to as "in the process of pulling off something unconstitutional"?

Health Care Reform? Another Stimulus package? Changing the rates of the graduated income tax?

Health Care is unconstituional, cap and trade is unconstitutional. Bailouts, company ownership, etc etc are all unconstitutional, and its not just Obama, or even democrats, that are executing unconstitutional actions.

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

No it isn't. Majority has never ruled here.

In some manners no, but it most manners, yes.

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

As I have already pointed out, it isn't like that at all. If the president, for example, is in violation (or an order of his is in violation) of the Constitution then his orders are unlawful and servicemen are not bound to obey it. Indeed, it would be their duty to oppose it.

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

Unless those actions are outside the US Constitution.



The nature of oaths is that they don't go away. I still consider myself under oath.

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

Yes, really. We are also sworn to protect and defend the Constitution in that oath. By violating the US Constitution he violates the document we are sworn to defend. Assuming that he has the rest of the government behind him (which I find unlikely), or enough to sanction whatever unconstitutional action he is taking, that would be more than enough.



Yet if the Pres has the rest (or a good chunck) of the government behind him that door is shut and leaves only one option left. Not saying this is the case now, but simply illustrating a scenario in which such violent action would be called for.



No violation here, but I understand how this is difficult for a civilian to wrap his/her head around. I am loyal to the Republic and I believe the Pres is a danger to that Republic. So far the government appears to be willing to fight him and keep him in check.

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.