Free Republic

Acting out of ignorance is not a substitute for acting with knowledgeable intent.

How do you know they acted out of ignorance?

You would have the Military officers resign and let others take their place to continue marching us into re-education camps?

No, if it ever got to that (and I don't think it ever would), then the current constitution would have obviously failed and a revolution with the aim of establishing a new government would be justified by the principles in the Declaration of Independence.

But that's not where we're at, and I don't think we'll ever get there.

Were there a constitutional judgement to question, you might have a point. As the issue has yet to be adjudicated,

It was adjudicated and settled when Congress ratified the electoral college results without a single objection.

Am I breaking some kind of rule? Are you threatening to get me banned?

No. I am simply asking you not to communicate with me. It is up to you whether or not you grant my request. If you do continue to send me posts, I will simply decline to reply.

Please do not send posts to me. I have determined that conversation with you is a waste of time and have no wish to engage you. If you continue send me posts, I will not respond.

This means that no matter how egregious the violation of constitutional requirements by the Civilian branches, the military must not interfere. So if the Executive branch starts pushing civilians into re-education camps, and if neither the Judicial or Legislative branches deign to object, the military is supposed to sit on their hands and proclaim "This is all perfectly acceptable because our superiors told us so! "

The founders set up a system of checks an balances within the civilian government designed to prevent something like that from happening. The military IS NOT part of this system. The only recourse miltiary officers would have in such an (extremely unlikely) scenario is refuse to carry out the unconstitutional orders and resign in protest.

There have been no determinations of the civilian branches of government because the issue hasn't been weighed

Bull. The electoral college results were certified by Congress. That's a judgement by the legislative branch that Obama is a legitimate presdient. George Bush peacefully handed over power to him without protest. That's a confirming judgement by the executive branch. Finally, Justice Roberts swore him in without objection. That's a confirming judgement by the judicial branch.

And if that's not enough, several lower Federal courts rejected birther arguments ONE THE MERITS. Yes, on the merits. Birthers love to say their cases were thrown out based on technicalities, but that's not true of all of them. There were a couple in which the judge specifically ruled that birther arugments were nonsense.

So we have all the three branches of a dully-elected, civilian goverment unanimously judging that Obama is a legitimate president.

The military, not being elected, and not representing the people, has no authority to object. Unlike what goes on in bananna republics, the military is not a branch of government in our system, neither de jure nor de facto.

Silly cow, The Military has always had veto power over presidential elections.

So you finally showed your fascist colors. Good to see you being honest for a change.

An original document is not absurdly high

The duplicity of birthers never ceases to amaze me.

You know damn well you wouldn't be satisfied with an original birth certificate even if Hawaii's public health director delivered it to you in person and swore under oath to its authenticity. You have stated to me numerous times how you don't trust Hawaii's birth registration procedures, and how you believe it is likely that Obama's official documents say he was born in Hawaii when he wasn't.

And then even if you could be satisfied that he was born in Hawaii, you still would say he is ineligible because his father wasn't a US citizen.

So don't give me this crap about how all it would take is just a $12 document. That's a lie and you know it.

An axiomatic fact of life is the man with the gun makes the rules.

That is true in Bannana republics, but not in the USA.

In point of fact, one of the principle goals of the founding fathers was precisely to set up a system in which the military DO NOT make the rules.

That is why, under our system, the miltiary has absolutely no right to question the constitutional judgement of civilian branches of government.

Let me ask you this: if the military thinks x on some constitutional question, and all three civilian branches of government unanimously decide y, who's judgement triumphs?

Again, it isn't contravening when it is their duty. The Civilian system is falling apart. Just because it can't do it's job doesn't mean the Military shouldn't do theirs.

That is precisely how every single military coup in history has been justified. I hope you enjoy the company you keep.

Requiring the Military to demand proof of eligibility would make us a Dictatorship?

Yes, because that would give the military de facto veto power over presidential elections. If the military didn't like the choice of the people, they could say they haven't been given sufficient proof of the president's eligibility, continually making excuses as to why whatever proof presented to them isn't good enough, just as birthers do with the proof Obama has presented.

We are closer than ever before because they DIDN'T do it.

Bull.

A Legitimate President would not be afraid to prove it.

Depends on the standard of proof. Make that standard absurdly high, as birthers are doing with Obama, and no one can satisfy it.

Again, it isn't contravening when it is their duty.

Please tell me where the constitution gives the military the authority to determine the eligibility of the president.

I think you are wrong about this. I think it DOES apply to all military officers.

I am right. Look up the definition of "public officer."

Me: I never said the military aren't allowed to understand the constitution.

It's an axiomatic component of your argument.

No it's not.

If they are not permitted to judge constitutionality, how can they defend it when they aren't allowed to comprehend it?

They are allowed to make judgements, but where there is a dispute, they must defer the determination of the civilian branches of government. If it were otherwise, we would be living in a military dictatorship.

If that be the case, then pray tell How do they know when they are defending the constitution if they are not allowed to hear anything but what other people tell them it means? When must blind robots open their eyes?

I never said the military are only allowed to hear what other people tell them what the constitution means. Nor did I ever say they must be mere blind robots.

My point is that the military must defer to the judgement of the civilian branches when there is a dispute on a constitutional matter.

For it to be otherwise would be to put the military's judgement above that of the civilian branches of government, thereby destroying the fundamental principle of civilian contorl.

If a military officer believes he is being ordered by the civilian authority to committ an unconstitutional act, than his duty is is resign in protest and take his case to the people.

Ergo, Nothing in the Constitution gives the military the authority to make a determination about any Constitutional question, n'est-ce pas?

Not on a disputed question that has already been decided by the civilian branches of government, as in this case.

What contravening? Asking for proof of legitimacy, (something which ALL the civilian agencies FAILED to do) is Treason?

Refusing to follow lawful orders until being given what an officer thinks constitutes, in his judgment, satisfactory proof does constitute an act of contraveneing the judgement of both Congress and the electoral college, who have already found Obama to be proven legitimate to their satisfaction.

Again, why do you think the tail should wag the dog? Why is it too much to ask the little man-child for proof of legitimacy as opposed to requiring the most powerful Military force in the world to ignore their defense of our governing document?

Because it goes against the Constitution, which gives the power of vetting the president-elect to the electoral college and Congress alone.

For the military to demand proof to its satisfaction would constitute a usurpation of power not granted to it.

Geeze, it's like giving Denis the Menace the keys to the Death Star, and you're okay with it. The Military mustn't Question little Dennis.

That's exactly right. We are not Chile. We are not Turkey. We are not Fascist Spain. The people, acting through the electoral college and their elected representatives in Congress are fully sovereign. The military is the servant of these institutions of the people, and it has no business questionting their judgements.

The military has no business contrvening the will of the poeple, even if they decide to elect someone like Dennis the Menace to the presidency.

Says General Andrew Jackson, as quoted by Lincoln when he was not yet President.

Doesn't change the fact that "public office" means a civilian officer. Jackson wasn't general at the time he made that comment.

Again, how does the Military know when to defend the constitution if they are not allowed to understand it? (According to YOUR argument.) Seems like a problem with your theory there.

I never said the military aren't allowed to understand the constitution.

In accordance with the requirements of the Constitution. Carrying out orders in Conflict with it is illegal.

I agree. However, neither Larkin nor the yahoo who this thread is about has been given an unconstitutional order.

To LEGITIMATE civilian government. Subservience to ILLEGITIMATE government is a violation of their duty.

It is not the military's duty to determine the legitimacy of the presidency. That is the duty of Congress and the electoral college. Both have determined him to be legitimate. The military has no authority to contravene that determiantion.

To have it any other way would be to turn our republic into a military dictatorship, which is what you seem to advocate.

I guess you missed that second part where he said:

"Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it and not as it is understood by others."

The term "public officer" refers to an officer in the civilian government, not the military.

I am the one that believes the Military has an obligation to Defend our Constitution as they swore,

Actually, the opposite is true. You are asking the military to violate their oaths, since you are asking them to do something they are not most emphatically NOT constitutionally authorized to do, namely, to challange the civilian branches of government in their determination of the president's legitimacy.

and one of the requirements of this should be to make Damned certain that they are following a legitimate commander.

Perhaps in your mind that should be the case, but it most ephatically is not. Nothing in the constitition gives the military the authority to make a determination about their commander's legitimacy. That is the job of the electors, the legislature, the judiciary, and, ultimately, the people.

For the military to contravene the determination of two civilian branches of government, plus the electoral college, and the voters to boot, would be a violation of their constitutional oath of the grossest sort, if not outright treason.

The Civilian branches did not do their duty. This is no excuse for the military not to do theirs.

Under our constitution, the military has no authority to contravene the will of the civilian goverment. Nor does it have any authority to determine whether civilian goverment has done its duty. That is the job of the voters, and the voters alone. The military's duty is to carry out the will of the civilian goverment.

Military subserviance to civilian goverment is a key principal of republican goverment that prevents tyranny. The founding fathers understood this. I'm shocked that so many so-called "conservatives" on this site don't.

To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln regarding his actions vis a vis the Dred Scott Decision, " I swore to uphold the constitution as *I* understand it, not as Chief Justice Tanney Understands it."

He was talking about his perogatives as president. He wasn't talking about individual officers in the military, nor even individual citizens.

As president Lincoln was in charge of a civilian branch of government that is co-equal to the Supreme Court, which arguablely gives him the authority to challange the court's interpretation of the constitution. No one in the military has such authority, as the military is not the coequal of any branch of civilian government, but its servant.

"The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must, each for itself, be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution."

Notice that Jackson does not mention the military, but only the civilian branches of government. There is a reason for that.

And to blindly accept the pronouncements of our leaders without regard for the consequences is the road to something worse. Fascism.

LOL. This is too funny. You're the who believes the military can impose its interpretation of the constitution on the civilian branches of government, and you're calling me fascist?

Do you even know what fascism is? I'll give you a hint. In fascist countries, the military is usually not subserviant to civlian government, but rather the opposite, as you would seem to favor.

You are saying they should accept illegitimacy without challenging it, a direct violation of their oath of service and oath of office.

It is not up to the military to determine whether the commander in chief is legitimate or not. It's up to the civilian branches, which have determined him to be legitimate. To have the military contravening the judgement of the civilian branches strikes at the very heart of the constitution.