Posted on 08/31/2013 11:39:33 PM PDT by LucianOfSamasota
I know that enlisted oaths contain a clause regarding Chain of Command, which could ultimately be construed as leading back to the Presidency.
Then the question becomes, does that include an illegitimate Usurper acting in violation of *his* oath of office?
Methinks NOT.
Well, it may be his military, but he didn’t need them when HE killed bin Laden. /s
It's merely a bloated ego bursting out of a really, really small man.
Maybe that's why the National Guard oath recognizes the President as the CIC. It makes sure the troops will respond to the President above their state governor.
It’s the standard oath of enlistment, regular or NG. The oath you listed is for officers. They are different. There’s also another oath officers have to recite when they make the field grade levels.
No: He meant to say exactly what he said.
He thinks everything on loan to him during his small time in office belongs to him.
He is madly in love with himself.
If that's the case, then the States which have such provisions make the grievous error of assuming those are State Militias. By being under Federal Command at any beck and call, they are no longer primarily in the service of their respective states should the Federal Government countermand any order of their respective Governors.
I doubt he intends to step down in Jan 2017.
But what if obeying the orders of the POTUS prevents you from protecting and defending the Constitution?
I just told the guys here at work about this. Of course, their response was, “I’m sure that there have been plenty of republican presidents who have said the same thing about the military.”
Ugh.
I heard it the first time and he meant it. The original idea may have been to say both types of advisors but the way it came out was clear. He owns the military. Not the first time he has said this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxTqnEVw4F4
I thought his military was the DHS.
He did say “my Muslim faith” one time until George Snagglepuss corrected him.
Maybe he was only referring to his Marine corpse.
When zero thinks that the proper use of a Marine is to hold an umbrella over his head then it only follows that he believes the military exists to serve him.
I really liked his use of the term our “Constitutional Democracy” Now there is some real change.
While I found his statement repugnant and a spit in the face of the military, he is the CinC of the military which effectively makes it “his military”. I retired when Klontoon was in the seat and will never display my papers with his signature on them. When we go ballistic over such statements, we degenerate to the apparent brain-power of the Left. There is so much more that is a LOT more relevant to howl about than such as this - it provides a useful distraction that helps the Left more than it harms Zero.
Foolish on their part, as their "State Militia" can be Federalized at the president's call.
The Montgomery Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act in 1987 provides that a governor cannot withhold consent with regard to active duty outside the United States because of any objection to the location, purpose, type, or schedule of such duty. This law was challenged and upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1990 in Perpich v. Department of Defense.
[This might have been in reference to a situation in Minnesota (I think). Some years back, the Gov. complained about the government taking their National Guard units and sending them down to South America for some disaster relief. He was told, in effect, "Tough Noogies. We pay for 'em, we can use 'em any time we want."]
The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 changed a section of an earlier law so that the Governor of a state was no longer the sole commander in chief of their state's National Guard during emergencies within the state. The President of the United States was then able to take total control of a state's National Guard units without the governor's consent.
All 50 governors opposed the increase in power of the President over the National Guard in a letter to Congress. (crickets)
Another argument for an armed citizenry.
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.