Paradox Of The Soldier's Oath

[matthewcline 0]

The lucky reference is about a character here who keeps calling us (Members of the DOD) dumb (paraphrased).

OK I am paying attention (and seeing great humor in the "Pay attention to detail" comment). Who gets to determine if the CIC is now an enemy of the Nation? Do you think the country would allow the CIC to be declared an enemy and the Military would still be in his "control"? I know this is all "hypothetical", I just don't see it as plausible.

The oath is given to a service member of the nations defense department. If the oath is not given to a citizen then they would not have a conflict with the oath, as they did not receive it. So if your not a member of the DOD your not in conflict with the Oath of Enlistment or Commision.

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I know this is all "hypothetical", I just don't see it as plausible.

Perhaps you should follow current events more closely. I have not strayed far from the current President's use of Presidential Signing Statements with my hypothetical.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the current President is an enemy of the Constitution (that would be worthy of its own thread.), but his actions (independent of Iraq) are such that to dismiss out of hand the possibility of such a scenario is naive, IMO, since it would require only a very small expansion of power claimed by the President, whenever (s)he might be.

As a citizen, I believe I have every right to question whether US troops hold their oath to the Constitution above there oath to the President. I'm certain our Founding Fathers mentioned something about that right in the First Amendment.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[matthewcline 0]

I am in the middle of the current events.

I also think that the people of this country are doing very well in voicing their displeasure.

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I am in the middle of the current events.

So tell us, how many Presidential Signing Statements has the President signed, claiming authority to selectively recognize Congressional legislation, instead of vetoing the legislation and giving Congress the opportunity to exercise their Constitutionally granted authority to override his veto? How many of those have to do with legislation that is very, very unlikely to ever be challenged in a courtroom?

Bonus history question: How many Presidential Signing Statements have all the previous presidents signed, combined?

Answer those questions and tell me if you still think my hypothetical scenario is far fetched? We may not be there yet, but we're not that far away.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

...should the President be an enemy of the Constitution?

If I understand the amazing system of checks and balances that the US constitution offers, unconstitutionality can only be determined by the judicial branch (and not by members of the armed forces).

I can't find anything in the Constitution about the Judicial Branch having the authority to declare a President an enemy of the Constitution. Where exactly is this authority granted?

A president declaring himself an "enemy" of the constitution amounts to the president rescinding his oath. Once he gives orders that lead to violation of the constitution, the judicial system can be consulted and the order challenged. Should the judicial arm find such order to be in violation of the constitution, it would then enables the legislative arm to initiate the impeachment process, which could lead to the removal of the President from him functions, including CIC of the Armed Forces. And I bet you that if the POTUS would indeed be deemed an "enemy" of the constitution, the above process could be gone through pretty quickly... My understanding of the system.

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I know this is all "hypothetical", I just don't see it as plausible.

Perhaps you should follow current events more closely. I have not strayed far from the current President's use of Presidential Signing Statements with my hypothetical.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the current President is an enemy of the Constitution (that would be worthy of its own thread.), but his actions (independent of Iraq) are such that to dismiss out of hand the possibility of such a scenario is naive, IMO, since it would require only a very small expansion of power claimed by the President, whenever (s)he might be.

As a citizen, I believe I have every right to question whether US troops hold their oath to the Constitution above there oath to the President. I'm certain our Founding Fathers mentioned something about that right in the First Amendment.

Perhaps you need to study the military oaths a bit more... there's nothing mentioned about the President in them.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I am in the middle of the current events.

So tell us, how many Presidential Signing Statements has the President signed, claiming authority to selectively recognize Congressional legislation, instead of vetoing the legislation and giving Congress the opportunity to exercise their Constitutionally granted authority to override his veto? How many of those have to do with legislation that is very, very unlikely to ever be challenged in a courtroom?

Bonus history question: How many Presidential Signing Statements have all the previous presidents signed, combined?

Answer those questions and tell me if you still think my hypothetical scenario is far fetched? We may not be there yet, but we're not that far away.

Presidents for the last several DECADES have used signing statements... you obviously only have problems with the current one.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Presidents for the last several DECADES have used signing statements... you obviously only have problems with the current one.

Personally, I think all signing statements, if they reserve the President's right to selectively deem the law inapplicable, are unconstiutional. Raw data: GW Bush has used more signing statements than the previous several presidents combined. Whether one thinks that's good, bad or neutral, that fact is what it is.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Perhaps you need to study the military oaths a bit more... there's nothing mentioned about the President in them.

Really?

Quote

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Presidents for the last several DECADES have used signing statements... you obviously only have problems with the current one.

I never stated otherwise. However, the current President has signed many, many more than all the previous presidents combined. He uses them to avoid giving Congress the ability to override a veto.

Yes, I have a serious problem with that.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Perhaps you need to study the military oaths a bit more... there's nothing mentioned about the President in them.

Really?

Quote

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

My bad - I was going from memory, thank you for the reminder.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Looks like the part of the oath mentioning the President is to obey orders, not an allegiance oath to the President - wouldn't you agree?

Yes, I agree. I'm not sure there is a real difference between the two. If you are sworn to obey the orders, aren't the results essentially the same as an oath of allegiance?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Looks like the part of the oath mentioning the President is to obey orders, not an allegiance oath to the President - wouldn't you agree?

Yes, I agree. I'm not sure there is a real difference between the two. If you are sworn to obey the orders, aren't the results essentially the same as an oath of allegiance?

I feel there's a difference - you're swearing to support and defend the Constitution, not the President.

Also, illegal orders are just that - illegal and not to be obeyed. This is something that the military teaches about in basic training - or at least they did back in '84.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[nanook 1]

Quote

Just because the President is (hypothetically) an enemy of the Constitution does not mean the Constitution is fallen

Exactly. I was implying that an "enemy" of the Constitution is too Subjective. If opinions really held weight, the "Fascist America" crowd has a real, rather than an imagined, case. You would have to have evidence. An open attempt to null the constitution would be good enough.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[moodyskydiver 0]

I know I'm going to get railed for this one,but thats ok.My answer is strictly my opinion as a civilian.I personally believe this question has already been answered,whether they are acted upon in the present day is another matter. Your rights as a citizen (or duty to country)and your choice to act upon them are two separate things. The US Declaration of Independence:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.


You all enjoy your opinion and I'll enjoy mine.

"...just an earthbound misfit, I."

[Zenister 0]

Traditionally in Oaths.. the first listed cause is Prime.. therefore the Constitution will ALWAYS outweigh the President.

It up the the individual to decide if they will follow the elected leaders.. but as a member of the military you have already made that choice on enlistment....

i can see some people really take their oath seriously.. if they cant even recall mention of the President in them...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Traditionally in Oaths.. the first listed cause is Prime.. therefore the Constitution will ALWAYS outweigh the President.

It up the the individual to decide if they will follow the elected leaders.. but as a member of the military you have already made that choice on enlistment....

i can see some people really take their oath seriously.. if they cant even recall mention of the President in them...

Probably more seriously than ones that take then oath, then try to get out of the commitment when things get tough... Watada, anyone?

I also stated that I was going from memory... I'm certain, being the perfect person that you are, that you'll be able to recall your service entry oath word for word, 20 years later.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Zenister 0]

word for word? probably not.. but you can be absolutely certain i will recall the major clauses and parties in ANY Oath i ever take...

if i couldnt i wouldnt take it in the first...

but then i ALWAYS endeavor to read and understand anything i sign or swear to, and by doing so ensure i wont forget why/what/who i gave my word to... even after its 'limits' have expired...

far to many people blithely mouth the words without knowing what they are saying...

those who actually break their word simply because circumstances they did not anticipate occur... i have absolutely no respect for...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.