Are we defending the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic?

2014-05-04T04:25:33-04:00

I believe that our first duty as a member of the military service is to defend our Constitution. Now having made that statement would this defense of our Constitution include defending it from our own government? I ask this because I see our personal freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights slowly being stripped away. To me this can only be construed as an attack on that which we swore an oath to defend. What do the rest of you have to say about this?

Response by SPC Robert Walo made May 4 at 2014 10:53 AM

2014-05-04T10:53:45-04:00

Yes it means just that. But those in active military must remember that the rules are different for you than us vets. Many death penalty offenses can be committed by defending the constitution while in active duty status. But you will be asked to fire upon US civilians, be assertive. Do not fire upon civilians unless you are fired upon.

Response by LCpl Charles Ross made Jun 2 at 2014 2:32 AM

2014-06-02T02:32:45-04:00

That is what I was told at M.C.R.D., San Diego. Nobody said that I no longer need to fight for The Constitution. As a Marine I was trained to do this, and I'd gladly go overseas to allow someone else the choice to go back home TODAY. Yes they are slowly trying to step around The Bill of Rights. And yes this could be construed as an attack. I suppose You've come to the STUPID idea, that it would be just as agreeable, to everyone, to ATTACK OUR OWN GOVERNMENT. In RETALIATION for your perceived injustices. If you can't stand what's going on here, then leave, and find some other Country, that would allow you to have all entitlements given freely to all Americans. IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!

Response by SSG William Patton made Jun 3 at 2014 1:06 PM

2014-06-03T13:06:38-04:00

Charles, when I joined the Army I took an oath before God that I would support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic and that oath has never expired. I too am very concerned with the disregard by our leadership of the Constitution they all swore to uphold and defend. Many in my opinion have violated that oath, including the POTUS and currently the Senate majority leader is pushing a bill to curtail our right to free speech. The Founders, especially Thomas Jefferson said we have the right as patriots, to use whatever means necessary to protect the republic from a tyrannical government. I will not fire the first shot, but if fired upon by this government, I will uphold my oath.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2016 2:04 AM

2016-03-22T02:04:36-04:00

No. We are not.
Lawyers are in their teaching the "Keepers of the Law."
The issue becomes "Judicial Review." Here is the lie and the destruction of our precious Constitution.
In first year law students they are taught: "We change the Constitution in three ways."
This is why many of us, ask, what has happened when we hear and see the turing and twisting of the rule of law that is now making you a criminal for defending your home and you shoot a person who broke in?
They go on:
1. Formal document change. (This is the only one we as common men know-admendments voted on)
2. Judicial Interpretation. (So they could change the constitution for the changing times, i.e. for the beliefs of those who are in office!
3. Customs and Usage. (Yup, the very thing you always here people say - No such thing as common Law. Well, better pick you chin up! Every time they use "judicial review" to change the constitution and we do not "Rise UP in Mass Against their ruling, it becomes COMMON LAW.

this from:
The Constitution of the United States. 2002. R.B. Berstein, p. 22, last sentence - p. 25.

What is truly the seed of permitting judical review is alarming and disturbing!!!!
This is a case decided in Marbury vs Madison...Cheif Justice Marshall decided.
The case ensued because Marbury did not recieve his appointment to a Justice-of-the Peace and so he took Madison (Secetary of State) to court over the failure to deliver the documents.
President John Adams appinted William Marbury Justice of the Peace for the District of Columbia.
The other piece of history is Marshall was a good buddy to the King of England an so they placed this judicial reivew into the American jurisprudence and it has been contrary...

What is even more disturbing is Marshall cited the use of the Judiciary Act of 1789, section 13 and reviewed the action of Congress to create section 13, saying they cannot. From my long ago research, it had nothing to do with the authority to act out "judicial review." but fact they alleged Congress can not make laws the Constitution does not permit them to make. This is the review issue at heart the King of Engalnd seeded into American Jurisprudence that needs to be corrected in order for our Constitution to survivie. Here, they claim the right to change the US Constitution aginst what the Constitution said it can: It shall be changed by the people and for the people.
The very act Marshall said Congress cannot do, Judicial Review does! and it is hipprocarcy, decay of our democracy and Engalnd know it....

Response by PO2 Bruce Schultz made Jul 30 at 2017 9:43 AM

2017-07-30T09:43:03-04:00

What constitutes as a domestic enemy?

Response by CW2 Fred Baker made Jul 30 at 2017 12:22 PM

2017-07-30T12:22:55-04:00

Run for office.

Response by PO3 Pete Gandy made Dec 19 at 2018 10:42 PM

2018-12-19T22:42:15-05:00

This is exactly why our fore fathers included the 2nd amendment. They said that any government that is not for the people should be removed and replaced by the citizens. Are we there yet?
Getting damned close.