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 ...
It is the duty of an individual to refuse to obey an unlawful order. It is not the duty of the servicemember to decide if an order is Constitutional or not. Therefore orders are assumed lawful unless they require one to perform a clearly illegal act, such as the commission of a crime.
I think it's a fundamental flaw in our government. Yes, all three branches are at liberty to decide for themselves if something is constitutional or not, but they can't decide for the other branches.
So, for example, a president can veto a bill and explain that he did so because he finds it unconstitutional. Then the Congress can override the veto and say they think it is constitutional. The president can't stop them. The legislature may find the president exercising powers they find to be unconstitutional. What can they do about it?
And the court? They have the most awesome power of all! Not only can the other branches NOT overrule them, their decisions become law in a way that is much more likely to become fixed and permanent than anything the legislature or the president may do. When it comes to law, legislators legislate, executives execute, but the judges rule (no pun intended.)
It seems to me, this was by design. I believe Alexander Hamilton knew exactly what he was doing, and got what he wanted--a supreme court with a general tendency toward amassing national power at the expense of the states and/or the people.
The tendency of our scheme of three "co-equal' branches is not that no one gets away with extra-constitutional powers, but rather, that they all do. In fact it's a misnomer to call them extra-constitutional, since to me, the setup itself ensures just the kind of results we've gotten. The design is bad.
Note: I am no longer on active duty. Despite that detail, my oath did not have an expiration date. I still have a moral obligation to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, especially as it faces the biggest domestic threat in our country's history - actually the biggest threat of any kind, ever.
By YOUR words, you the individual don’t get to decide if that list is Constitutional or not.
And you also equate whether or not you could win the court case as to whetehr or not you would be ‘loyal’.
I'd be interested in seeing what part of the UCMJ supports that. I'm not aware of anything that grants a servicemember the authority to interpret the Constitution.
I don't need to be granted that right in the UCMJ. We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, and that is one of them.
Despite what the liberals pretend, interpreting the Constitution is not a difficult task. An order to disarm the American people in general (as opposed to a particular individual or group that pose a threat to the country) is a clear and direct violation of the Second Amendment and must be refused (with a penalty that must be endured if the Commander-in-Chief has no respect for the Constitution he pretended to swear to uphold). Doing the right thing is not guaranteed to be painless, just to be right. An order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people violates the 4th Amendment and must be refused unless there is an immediate danger that requires the warrantless search (or that immediate danger is at least plausible when obeying the order) . . . And so on through an order to infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.I don't need a lawyer to interpret these simple concepts for me. There are issues that are on the line and could be interpreted either way, but an obviously unconstitutional order is an unlawful order, and God gave me both the right and the responsibility to disobey such an order.
In these interesting times and with Obama in power, that right and that duty are particularly relevant. As with Nazi Germany (and I am not convinced that Obama will not turn out to be worse for the world than Hitler), I don't need additional legal authority to do the right thing in accordance with my oath and with the Constitution. The Nuremberg Trials made that quite clear.
I think the anti-Federalists scored several points on Hamilton, but I wouldn't be so arrogant as to judge his "design" as "bad". Maybe a little more humility would help.
If your opinion is a majority among people in this country, the experiment in self-government is over. DONE. You actually believe this? Or are you just being provocative?
You do realize the Constitution is built on self-evident rights? Like the inherent right to own and carry arms? Would you really obey an order to disarm civilians en masse? If so, I do not believe you are an honorable soldier, not to mention keeping your oath to protect and defend the Constitution.
How can you even keep the oath unless you know what the hell it is you are taking an oath to defend? Insanity.
The President may be the Commander in Chief, but if he issues an order that is clearly against the law, the military is not required to obey it.
Facts are facts. Humility has nothing to do with it. 200 + years of data. The results are in.
Facts are facts. Humility has nothing to do with it. 200 + years of data. The results are in.
“The President may be the Commander in Chief, but if he issues an order that is clearly against the law, the military is not required to obey it.” = SQ
One step further - Officers are required to NOT obey illegal orders.
So soldiers should have refused to go to Iraq without a Congressional declaration of war?
Says you. I've read solid arguments that say it is not constitutional to go to war without a declaration. If everyone is bound to the Constitution, they are also bound to their interpretation of it, no? And you can have intelligent disagreement. What if a soldier THINKS it's unconstitutional?
I'd be interested in seeing what part of the UCMJ supports that. I'm not aware of anything that grants a servicemember the authority to interpret the Constitution.
U.S. Constitution, Article VI ¶2: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Unconstitutional orders (or statutes, regulations, ordinances, etc. or other governmental rules or actions) are illegitimate by definition. Any rule would would require a soldier to obey an unconstitutional order is void.
To be sure, there are many cases where reasonable people could disagree whether an order is constitutional; in such cases, a soldier should follow it. On the other hand, there is nothing in the Constitution that gives court rulings any authority whatsoever other than in the specific case at issue, any government action which could not be constitutionally justified without reference to court precedent is constitutionally unjustifiable and illegitimate. It's perfectly proper to use past court decisions to decide whether something is constitutional in those cases which would be truly ambiguous otherwise; it is not legitimate, however, to cite them as primary authority to reach a decision which could not be reached in their absence.
And what gives them the authority to interpret direct orders? What is it about certain sets of instructions which require different standards of proof. Consider that one set of instructions actually declares itself to be supreme to all others and is the subject of a binding oath of obedience. Those who act on behalf of the constituted government are denied the authority to misinterpret the Constitution by the Ninth Amendment, anyway.
What does a soldier do if he is given orders by officers of differing rank and he thinks that the orders of the inferior officer conflict with those of the superior? Really, the answer to this question will settle the issue.
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.