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?)
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,)
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.")
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.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson