[USNBandit]

What a load of garbage. This is no different than the soldiers that refused to deploy with their units or ran off to Canada because they didn't like G.W. Bush.

The oath to support the Constitution doesn't mean your own interpretation of the Constitution. It means carrying out the orders of the President and those appointed over you, as long as they are legal.

"Oath Takers" that decide for themselves that they don't have to follow the orders of the civilian government are violating the Constitution, not supporting and defending the Constitution.

[WorkingClassFilth]

At some point on the current Pres__ential trajectory, what you call “garbage” will be a reality because the only American basis of legality IS the Constitution; and when the Constitution is under attack by domestic enemies . . .

[Jo Nuvark]

At least these good men are doing something.
While you... sir... are doing nothing but dividing.

UNITE OR DIE!

[Domandred]

It means carrying out the orders of the President and those appointed over you, as long as they are legal.

Okay so when Congress passes and Obama signs a law that says civilians can't own weapons any longer, and the military is used to confiscate them, your saying the military has to abide by that order because it's legal? Even though the Constitution says it's not via the 2nd Amendment.

So we come to a point that the order is legal by law, but not the Constitution. Which do you do? Follow the "legal order" or support and defend the Constitution?

Oath Keepers recognize that though certain orders are "legal" they are still against the Constitution, which their Oath is to, not the critters in Congress, nor the President, who signed that law and order.

You apparently do not.

[fr_freak]

The oath to support the Constitution doesn't mean your own interpretation of the Constitution. It means carrying out the orders of the President and those appointed over you, as long as they are legal.

I believe that is the entire point of the website. People feel some bad things coming, and these guys have decided, ahead of time, which things they will support as legal and which things they will not support, because they believe it to be illegal. Waiting until the very day that the order is given may be too late, as people won't have as much time to think things over.

If you read the list of orders that they won't obey, you'll see that it is really a list of orders that they would consider illegal, not merely a list of orders that they won't like.

That site is a great idea, because it allows for active and ex-military to put their heads together and flesh out their beliefs and where the lines are drawn, and the guys who started the site obviously think that those lines may be crossed by our government very soon. I really don't see why you would have such a knee-jerk violent opposition to this.

[Moozle]

“...as long as they are legal...” Very important point.

To order violation of the constitution is illegal, and therefore an unlawful order. You should read it. I take it the “USN” stands for United States Navy. If so, you took the oath. You should understand it better. It is not “to civilian leadership” but to the laws of this land, the Constitution is the foundation of these laws.

[El Gato]

The oath to support the Constitution doesn't mean your own interpretation of the Constitution.

Then whose interpretation must one be guided by?

It means carrying out the orders of the President and those appointed over you, as long as they are legal.

There's the rub, if they are unconstitutional, then they are illegal.

No doubt these are very treacherous waters, to be navigated with extreme caution. But in the end, each person must decide where the line is. Unlike some countries, the US has always wanted thinking soldiers, from top to bottom. We win battles and wars that way...or we used to anyway.