Thread: Oathkeepers

Originally Posted by wiggidy

It's too early to make this argument. We have no idea what it will take for this group to take action. However, the true power in the constitution isn't given to the SCOTUS or Congress, it's given to the people.

The people rule but, generally, do not govern. Their power is not to decide what is Constitutional in any case.

As to what would make this group take action it was mentioned to be things like "blockading the cities". Now the only person who's ever suggested that here lately is Swope, and, somehow, I didn't take him for a big Obama man, did you??

Originally Posted by Steve

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...

That may be true, but i still get the sense that the 'movement' gets it momentum from a decidedly partisan demographic.

Andrew

Let me also raise the question...why would anyone trust these guys to overthrow the government and start all over again? I mean, wouldn't this eventually lead to other 'militias' trying to overthrow the government so they can be responsible for starting anew (and perhaps molding it more to their liking)?

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

Let me also raise the question...why would anyone trust these guys to overthrow the government and start all over again? I mean, wouldn't this eventually lead to other 'militias' trying to overthrow the government so they can be responsible for starting anew (and perhaps molding it more to their liking)?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Declaration of Independence was basically the same thing as the Oathkeepers website.

That militia DID overthrow its rightful and legal government and started a new one molded to their liking.

People forget to think about the American Revolution in context. In 1776, the legitimate and rightful government of the area we now call the United States, was the British Empire. That is an absolute, unquestionable fact.

The laws in place were absolutely legitimate, and in fact, were far LESS onerous than they are today. The tax rates were so low we'd think we'd died and gone to Heaven if we had them. You could pretty much do whatever you damn well pleased as long as you didn't harm another or his property.

A small group of private citizens who didn't particularly agree with The Crown's view on gun control decided that General Gage was NOT going to enforce a legal order to confiscate the town's powder. I must stress again that it was a LEGAL order.

Forget all the romanticizing done over the past 230 years or so, and think about it from the perspective of the average man on the street in 1776.

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

Ultimately, though, I don't think anyone should be surprised if this is a partisan group. Obviously both ends of the spectrum have different ideas on what the constitution says and means, and therefore different ideas when someone is violating it.

Correct. I'd also point out that these kinds of groups form or activate when their deemed ideological opponents are in charge and/or are behind whatever they oppose. Obviously people don't protest that with which they agree.

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.

Just out of curiosity, what would be a suitable case for you to take non political action?

I'm in to folllow all orders and to obey the government/military hierachy, probably even offically unlawful orders (ordered genocide would be different, but when we would have a goverment to issue such orders,society (+ me) probably would have changed dramatically, so who knows maybe I would be still in line. Better men before me failed under such circumstances, so I can't guarantee not being in line even then.)

The thing is different, if I were outside the military, then I could imagine myself revolting, especially when my personal level of tolerance is reached.

Originally Posted by EricOKC

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Declaration of Independence was basically the same thing as the Oathkeepers website.

That militia DID overthrow its rightful and legal government and started a new one molded to their liking.

People forget to think about the American Revolution in context. In 1776, the legitimate and rightful government of the area we now call the United States, was the British Empire. That is an absolute, unquestionable fact.

The laws in place were absolutely legitimate, and in fact, were far LESS onerous than they are today. The tax rates were so low we'd think we'd died and gone to Heaven if we had them. You could pretty much do whatever you damn well pleased as long as you didn't harm another or his property.

A small group of private citizens who didn't particularly agree with The Crown's view on gun control decided that General Gage was NOT going to enforce a legal order to confiscate the town's powder. I must stress again that it was a LEGAL order.

Forget all the romanticizing done over the past 230 years or so, and think about it from the perspective of the average man on the street in 1776.

But the world is a much, much different place today than it was back then. For example, we were just a colony on some land back then. Right now, the United States is by and far the most powerful country on the face of the planet. That right there changes everything and makes the situation quite different.

Look at it this way. If Russia suddenly went into revolt and 'patriots' were overthrowing the government and trying to install something more to their liking, do you think the United States would sit around excitedly waiting to see who would come out on top with the world's largest nuclear arsenal? No way. We would certainly be attempting to influence who came out on top, whether through monetary support, arms supplying, intelligence supplying, etc. Other countries, perhaps China, would be doing the exact same thing. I'd imagine the same thing would occur here, with various countries doing whatever they could to ensure that whatever militia was in charge of remaking the government would be led by people who were friendly to that nation. Heck, even back in the Revolutionary War we were aided by the help of other countries. Now imagine how that would work out today. Britain and France coming in to help us overthrow the US government and do you really expect them to tip their hats and head home this time now that the US is in the power position it's in?

There are too many external influences, there is much much much more power at stake these days then there was during the Revolutionary War. Pointing out that they say similar things on their website to what is said in the Declaration of Independence is hardly convincing.

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.

let me guess: the constitution says we are free and stuff, and he wants to make us not free?

Originally Posted by John Drake

Tell that to George Washington and the 15000 troops he used to put down the Whiskey Rebelllion

NO government, by definition, can sanction it's OWN violent overthrow. If you ever successfully overthrow the US you will have DESTROYED the US, not defended it.

Correct. Any overthrow of the US government is an ultra vires act, and anything calling itself the US afterwards, if it succeeds, is not the same US that it was.

These people must follow the law. If they believe an act is unconstitutional, then they have legal recourse for that (courts, protest, ballot box, etc). They do not have the right to declare what's constitutional and what is not (other than in personal opinion) on their own whim and demand that it be accepted 'or else' at the threat of violence. That is what is tyranny.

Whilst I recognise and fully believe in the right to revolution, that right is well qualified as a last resort in all responsible theories of it and justified only under the most compelling justifications. None of those circumstances exists here. For hotheads of the Tim McVeigh brand, which instead this kind of stuff seems for the types in the OP who fail to respect their place in the order of things and the institutional remedies the nation provides for all to be fairly heard and addressed in an orderly societal fashion, insist their personal opinions must be adopted with threats of violence for noncompliance, I believe POTUS Andrew Jackson said it well in the South Carolina nullification controversy: ". . . please give my compliments to my friends in your State, and say to them, that if a single drop of blood shall be shed there in opposition to the laws of the United States, I will hang the first man I can lay my hand on engaged in such treasonable conduct, upon the first tree I can reach." And as for any public officials refusing to follow their oath and duties, this from the Union Secretary of the Treasury in 1861 regarding a secessionist minded revenue cutter commander refusing to follow orders:

"Treasury Department, January 29, 1861

Tell Lieutenant Caldwell to arrest Captain Breshwood, assume command of the cutter, and obey the order I gave you. If Captain Breshwood, after arrest, undertakes to interfere with the command of the cutter, tell Lieutenant Caldwell to consider him as a mutineer, and treat him accordingly. If anyone attempts to haul down the American flag, shoot him on the spot.

John A. Dix, Secretary of the Treasury”

They better be careful about what they say and do that it does not violate any laws because they'll deserve the full force of the law if they don't.

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

But the world is a much, much different place today than it was back then. For example, we were just a colony on some land back then. Right now, the United States is by and far the most powerful country on the face of the planet. That right there changes everything and makes the situation quite different.

Really? You think because technology changes that the right to be free somehow changes?

In case you missed it, the British Empire was THE superpower of its day. In the 18th Century, they were seen as the US is today.

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

Correct. Any overthrow of the US government is an ultra vires act, and anything calling itself the US afterwards, if it succeeds, is not the same US that it was.

These people must follow the law. If they believe an act is unconstitutional, then they have legal recourse for that (courts, protest, ballot box, etc). They do not have the right to declare what's constitutional and what is not (other than in personal opinion) on their own whim and demand that it be accepted 'or else' at the threat of violence. That is what is tyranny.

Whilst I recognise and fully believe in the right to revolution, that right is well qualified as a last resort in all responsible theories of it and justified only under the most compelling justifications. None of those circumstances exists here. For hotheads of the Tim McVeigh brand, which instead this kind of stuff seems for the types in the OP who fail to respect their place in the order of things and the institutional remedies the nation provides for all to be fairly heard and addressed in an orderly societal fashion, insist their personal opinions must be adopted with threats of violence for noncompliance, I believe POTUS Andrew Jackson said it well in the South Carolina nullification controversy: ". . . please give my compliments to my friends in your State, and say to them, that if a single drop of blood shall be shed there in opposition to the laws of the United States, I will hang the first man I can lay my hand on engaged in such treasonable conduct, upon the first tree I can reach." And as for any public officials refusing to follow their oath and duties, this from the Union Secretary of the Treasury in 1861 regarding a secessionist minded revenue cutter commander refusing to follow orders:

"Treasury Department, January 29, 1861

Tell Lieutenant Caldwell to arrest Captain Breshwood, assume command of the cutter, and obey the order I gave you. If Captain Breshwood, after arrest, undertakes to interfere with the command of the cutter, tell Lieutenant Caldwell to consider him as a mutineer, and treat him accordingly. If anyone attempts to haul down the American flag, shoot him on the spot.

John A. Dix, Secretary of the Treasury”

They better be careful about what they say and do that it does not violate any laws because they'll deserve the full force of the law if they don't.

People have different points at which they think their 'other' options have ended, and to sit there and say "No they haven't" is quite irrelevant and only serves to further prove their point, IMO. You, and your line of thinking, are part of the problem in their eyes. You say tyranny, and you may be right. However, their counter accusation of tyranny is just as valid. Whether or not they are right or wrong in your, or the government's, eyes is pointless. If they finally choose to pick up their rifles the only point that will matter is that of whomever comes out on top.

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

People have different points at which they think their 'other' options have ended, and to sit there and say "No they haven't" is quite irrelevant and only serves to further prove their point, IMO. You, and your line of thinking, are part of the problem in their eyes. You say tyranny, and you may be right. However, their counter accusation of tyranny is just as valid. Whether or not they are right or wrong in your, or the government's, eyes is pointless. If they finally choose to pick up their rifles the only point that will matter is that of whomever comes out on top.

Have to agree, in philosopical way.

Anyway eealisticly a group trying to revolt now, will be finished within seconds.

Maybe after a decade of political turmoil, splitter parties gaining support, 20-30% unemployment, a major hyperinflation and other horrible stuff, a group of rebels could start imagine to have success. As we are far away from such conditions, it's all just talk without substance.

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

People have different points at which they think their 'other' options have ended, and to sit there and say "No they haven't" is quite irrelevant and only serves to further prove their point, IMO. You, and your line of thinking, are part of the problem in their eyes. You say tyranny, and you may be right. However, their counter accusation of tyranny is just as valid. Whether or not they are right or wrong in your, or the government's, eyes is pointless. If they finally choose to pick up their rifles the only point that will matter is that of whomever comes out on top.

so you are a proponent of ideological nihilism. basically if someone believes something to be true, it is their right to fight about it.

i take it you admire OBL? he reached his point where globally, there were no more options to combat US imperial tyranny.

for you to sit there and say no he didn't is irrelevant and only serves to prove his point, that the US is ideologically rigid and only they are right.


the group you are defending believes that their interpretation of the constitution is correct and no alternatives are correct. absolute truth can be deduced from the constitution, even though the legal community from day one has considered it a guiding document open to interpretation.

you aren't asserting anything, just making a weak defense of something you agree with.