Skip to comments.Constitutional Refuseniks(Oathkeepers)
Posted on 04/12/2011 6:46:23 AM PDT by marktwain
When you run down the list of issues the Oath Keepers are worried about, it reads a lot like a bill of particulars from the American Civil Liberties Union. The Oath Keepers don't like warrantless searches. They're upset that the executive branch has claimed the power to classify American citizens as enemy combatants, detain them indefinitely, and try them before military tribunals. They worry that a large-scale terrorist attack similar to 9/11 could lead to the mass detention of Arabs or Muslims, just as Japanese Americans were detained during World War II. They worry about crackdowns on political speech, protest, and freedom of assembly. They are concerned about the Army 3rd Infantry's 1st Brigade Combat Team, a military unit that is training to deploy domestically in response to terrorist attacks or other national emergencies. And yet the group is a frequent target of the left.
Oath Keepers was founded in 2009 by Stewart Rhodes, a Yale Law School graduate and a former staffer for Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). Rhodes, 44, considers himself a constitutionalist and a libertarian. His organization's mission: to persuade America's soldiers and cops to refuse to carry out orders that violate the Constitution. On its website, Oath Keepers lists 10 orders its members will always refuse, including commands to conduct warrantless searches, to disarm the public, blockade an American city, or do anything that infringes "on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances." According to Rhodes, the group has about 30,000 dues-paying members.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
Quote from the interview.
I hope you are being sarcastic.
Not at all.
So, the military should be loyal to the person who is in the office of president, regardless of what is ordered by this person?
All well and good, except for the difference that the Oathkeepers wasn't founded by an avowed Marxist, and the ACLU was.
Legally speaking, we don’t all individually get to decide what is constitutional and what isn’t. A soldier can refuse too fight, but then they have to face the justice system—the military justice system at that.
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.
You’ve thrown insults at three posters so far and have yet to explain yourself. Do you even have an argument on your side? I ask because what you seem to support is the Nuremburg Defense, i.e., “I was just following orders”?
I would disagree. The oath (and honor) are with respect to the Constituion. 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. Otherwise, there would be no provision in the UCMJ for the term “illegal order”.
Exactly. Therefore, what an individual thinks is constitutional is irrelevant. It's what the system says is constitutional that counts.
***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”.
Here's the Oathkeepers' Oath:
I take it that your reply at 7. is that you would do all of these things because, otherwise, you'd 'get into trouble'.
Many of the items on that oath are unconstitutional.
So name me a case where a soldier refused an order on the grounds that it was unconstitutional, and won the case in court.
Hoping to attract the folks who were supposed to constitute their core membership - AD military and LEOs, who placed their treasured pensions and security clearances above their allegiance to a free country - OK shut down all talk of militias or anything even remotely resembling active resistance to tyranny.
Mamby-pamby feel-good land, IMO. Irrelevant now, and irrelevant when the time comes.
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.
'Conservative groupies'? You do realize you're on a conservative forum, right? You realize that statement insults almost everyone on FR, right?
I have read and listened to Steward Rhodes a lot. I saw what happened in New Orleans during Katrina-- people were disarmed in violation of the Constitution. Oathkeepers does a lot of good.
I smell troll. And maybe ozone.
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.