Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Pecos
That said, any member of the millitary refusing to obey an order shold be ready for the system to do what the system will do.

Exactly. Therefore, what an individual thinks is constitutional is irrelevant. It's what the system says is constitutional that counts.

12 posted on 04/12/2011 7:52:57 AM PDT by Huck (Will we still be using U6 when the pubbies are back in charge?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: Huck

***That said, any member of the millitary refusing to obey an order shold be ready for the system to do what the system will do.

Exactly. Therefore, what an individual thinks is constitutional is irrelevant. It’s what the system says is constitutional that counts.***

The right and duty of the individual to refuse an unconstitutional order is a uniquely American concept. Note that the officers of the Tird Reich did not have that as part of their oaths.

Ours does, for a reason.

As to your argument about the constitution is what the system says it is, have you considered the rather large number of cases where an individual filed a case which changed “the system”

Such cases are the real “Yes, we can”.


14 posted on 04/12/2011 8:18:17 AM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is essential to examine principles,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: Huck
Therefore, what an individual thinks is constitutional is irrelevant. It's what the system says is constitutional that counts.

And that right there is what's wrong with American government right now. That's how we got Wickard v Filburn, Roe v Wade, Bowers v Harwick, and Kelo v City of New London. All bad law, all obviously unconstitutional, but all forced on us by the judiciary. It is very much incumbent on all three branches, and the American people, to decide what's Constitutional.

19 posted on 04/12/2011 8:36:59 AM PDT by backwoods-engineer (Any politician who holds that the state accords rights is an oathbreaker and an "enemy... domestic.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: Huck
I am afraid you have still mis-understood me. What I said was that "any member of the military refusing to obey an order should be ready for the system to do what the system will do." That may be TOTALLY SEPARATE from what is Constitutional or moral. Sometimes the good guys go down for doing the right thing. The question is whether a person's morals will allow them to violate their sworn word.
31 posted on 04/12/2011 11:22:41 AM PDT by Pecos (Liberty and Honor will not die on my watch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson