Posted on 09/20/2015 5:34:40 PM PDT by conservativeimage
I ask because I believe the American soldier is unique in the world and history. I believe he would sooner protect and defend the constitution than just follow orders. Are our soldiers given a basic training on the constitution?
Thank you. That is reassuring. As for the executive orders and other unlawful actions this president is defrauding our country and military with, my point is that we can not let him retire unchallenged. I am looking to levels of hierarchy above myself for options. The legislature is lost. The judiciary is lost. The federal government is irrecoverable by proof of the last election. Logical sequence falls next to the military and their oath to constitutional law. I don’t seem to be getting anywhere at this level and that is unsettling. I see local law enforcement faltering. Can you tell me what it then comes down to?
< / i >
Note that the officers oath and the enlisted oath are different precisely in the area of orders. It is the officer’s responsibility to take the heat, or at least that is how I took it. That being said “just following orders” was not a defense at Nuremberg.
They are given training on parts of the constitution.
There is no obligation to follow an unlawful order.
Since CIC is in the Constitution, a soldier can’t disobey the CIC without also disobeying the Constitution. And my point isn’t whether Bush had the right to order the Iraq invasion (he did), but to point out that you will always have people with differing interpretations. If FReepers don’t agree, how would everyone else? In practical terms you cannot run a military with every soldier deciding which orders are valid under their particular theory of what the Constitution means. Which is the whole point of a Commander in Chief.
The Constitution has a mechanism for the country to determine who is an isn’t an enemy. It doesn’t say every soldier decides for themselves. Doing so usurps power from the people and their elected representatives.
Too simplistic. The Commander-in-Chief is subject to impeachment, no one is above the Constitution. You may be too young to remember the speculation that Nixon wouldn’t step down, a ‘Constitutional Crisis’. Under those circumstances the soldiers should be testing the Commander against his duties in the Constitution.
Every GI knows the Bill of Rights. A mass seizure of individuals arms in would be unconstitutional and that’s something I want soldiers to think about. Same with torture and interrogations of Americans.
No, I’m not too young. And if the Congress impeaches and convicts the president, he’s no longer President or CIC. That’s simple, not simplistic. But some of the posters here are saying that a soldier can do that on his own if he thinks the president is violating the Constitution.
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.It is equally true that our military *officers* bear an equal such burden as evidenced by the Oath of Office:
I, [name], 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.Citizens do not abdicate their duty to military officers, and military officers do not abdicate their duty to citizens. Both are sworn in their responsibilities and are equally held to the support and defense of the Constitution.
Soldiers are taught to refuse to follow unlawful orders, but they’re not educated to be lawyers or conspiracy theorists.
And if President Nixon had ordered the military to disband Congress the oaths of each Officer and soldier would have highlighted Constitution being the guide.
Its another ‘check and balance’ that our Founders so brilliantly conceived.
I sincerely believe you’re wrong. Think “Bonus Army”.
Yep - and also had it explained that it might be preferable to follow a bad order and then lodge a complaint because disobeying even a bad order could cause serious problems.
Both oaths require conscious effort/thought when it comes to deciding how to react to a conflict. First off, an unlawful order is not the same as a bad order. Let me explain- Officer says “ go take care of those prisoners” possibly an unlawful order, “Go take that hill” after three tries have already cost the lives of 100 men-probably a bad order.
Questioning the first is the proper action- “sir, do you mean you want us to go and shoot those prisoners?”
of course bot, I want you to protect them, secure then a nd move them to the rear you idiot”. The second example- “sir, maybe we ought to call for air to soften it up while we figure out what the best course of action is”.
If a president said for the US military to go round up congress and escort the out of the capitol so he could consolidate all power to himself- all officers and enlisted personnel should refuse, contact the congress and judiciary and perhaps even secure the usurper in place while the other branches could be alerted to the situation, but no officer or enlisted should decide for himself to act on what they perceive to be “illegal” and attempt to “arrest’ said potus. They may indeed act on their own conscience and refuse to participate by resignation, or request to relief via channels while alerting others to the issues. It is up to congress and the judiciary to impeach/convict/remove the chief exec per the constitution not the military. The military may indeed be ordered by the congress to act ( as it is supposed to be done)in enforcing its acts however-as the congress is the posse comitatus in this context-elected representatives, not a chief executive.
I have questioned several orders in my 24 year stint in the Army, enlisted and commissioned-never refused, but indeed in effect said “WTF (whoa there fellow) tell me again precisely what you want done?”
Anyways, free men never give up the right of conscience.
Thank you. Please don’t confuse defending the Constitution with the act of a singular Marine which is what seems to be the common dilemma on this post. That would be ineffective like me going to Washington D.C. by myself and standing outside the White House with a poster. Defending the Constitution from a rogue president should be a coordinated, cooperative act between branches; a system wide reflex action. It will have the support of citizens because congress has been found delinquent or incapable of taking action. Thanks again for your time.
Bet?
Our Constitution is nothing without the conscience and the character of those who swear the sacred oath to support and defend it.
In Nazi Germany the oath was to support and defend - and to obey - Der Fuehrer.
In Imperial Japan the oath was to support and defend - and to obey - the Emperor.
We can clearly see the destructive end of such an oath.
Our way is much better.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.