At what moment does the US military separate itself from the government when thinking the Soldiers creed and oath of enlistment ?

I understand the question. Biden is not mentally with it. They knew this when he was running. However, they wanted it so badly that they cheated everywhere. Just because the Supreme Court won't hear the case, does not mean it wasn't real. However, when it comes down to the oath, and from Foreign or Domestic Terrorist, well, will the military protect us from a tyrannical government, or does it mean that you will not?

Just as when I was in the Navy, and then Army, I always respected the Rank and Uniform of those appointed over me. It did not mean I respected the person.

The same is now true. I respect the Office of the President, but have zero respect for the person in that office.

Respect is earned, not demanded or forced.

I see a number of things to unpack here.
First "Is there a moment where the US armed forces not partake in decisions made by congress when things get to political? What if they are wanting actions to occur by our military when they go against the people and the constitution?" We take an oiath to protect & defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic; and to obey the lawful orders of those appointed over us. Prioritizing one's 'Politics' is for civilians who have not sworn to duty. If we reach a point where our conscience can't let us uphold our oath, then it is our responsibility to end our association with the military.

Second; "Is it even the us military anymore at that point?" The US military will *always* be the US military; whether or not it is the *same* military will be an open question. "Against the people and the Constitution" is sometimes subject to personal interpretation, which is why we have the Supreme Court. And even then, over decades, the interpretation can change to some degree.

Third; "Question stems from an uncertain near future with the new “leadership” that we now have. Just asking out of curiosity" There will always be questions about "leadership", civilian or military. There are people in authority who are not leaders and people who have no authority who are leaders. When equating "leadership" with "authority" see above, regarding 'lawfully appointed".

Regarding the current transition of Presidential power, 60+ courts - many with judges appointed by the outgoing President - have received no evidence that anything was done to alter the election results. Continuing to shout "There are questions!" because you don't like the answers you've already received implies an agenda that goes deeper than just getting to the truth.

If I am reading this correctly I believe your concern is the current troop positioning in DC. Does it concern me as a citizen? Yes. Is it unlawful? No it is not. The National Guard can police inside American borders where as the Active service and Reserve components cannot. Here is the thing, over my career I have served in many areas where I probably had my opinion whether or not it was wise. With that said I wasn't elected to office to make that call. So as a Soldier I followed orders. As long as an order is LAWFUL its your duty to execute. President Biden was elected to be Commander and Chief whether you voted for him or not makes no difference, he is in Command.

This is a very deep and serious question to reflect on. We all took an oath to uphold the constitution. We do not work for congress but we do report to the president. There will be a time where you will be asked to do things that go against your moral code. At that time you will have to choose, be a traitor to your conscience, your nation and your god, or be a traitor to the military of which you serve. Either way, you will be branded. The question is, which brand will you wear?

Thank you SSG (Join to see) for posting a pertinent question [I just discovered this post]
Defending the Constitution is most important - when Congress intends the military to support political agendas at the potential expense of the Constitution with the Bill of Rights which were ratified together.
My primary focus is the on Oath of Commissioned Officers
I enlisted when President Ford was POTUS in 1974 and served until President G.W. Bush's presidency ended in 2008. I permanently retired in 2016.
I consider Presidents Reagan and Trump to be the better Presidents. I did support President G.W. Bush and tolerated President Carter and President Clinton.
"I ___, 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. (Title 5 U.S. Code 3331, an individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services)
I concur with the responses of SSgt Michael Bowen Lt Col Jim Coe Lt Col Timothy Cassidy-Curtis MSG Daniel Talley SSG Byron Hewett
FYI SMSgt Lawrence McCarter MCPO Hilary Kunz CPL Douglas Chrysler MAJ Dale E. Wilson, Ph.D. Maj Bill Smith, Ph.D.GySgt Jack Wallace SPC Woody Bullard CMDCM John F. "Doc" Bradshaw PO3 Edward RiddlePO1 Jeff Chandler CPL Ronald Keyes Jr

MAJ Ken L, Unlike you i don't block people because they disagree with me so i can keep posting to them but they can't reply . I am not the butt hurt and weak . Nor am i that Narcissistic , You ask a question i forgot to reply to when i had the chance so i will do it now . The people that had that little mini riot on Jan 6th that lasted about an hour you asked if i knew their ideology or something like that . Well that depends , do you mean the ones that were invited into the building or the antifa ,blm, and fbi that were planted to incite trouble . But it doesn't really matter i am familiar with both ideologies .

Whether anyone wishes to hear it or not, SGT Cody Thompson, raises a valid question which should not be so quickly dismissed. Before I begin, let me say that I served under Reagan and every president up to 2008. While I did not agree with the election of some presidents during my time in the Navy, I proudly served and did my duty. Fortunately for me, our nation was not as polarized back then as it is now. My response here may (or may not) get me kicked from this site. If that is the case-then so be it. Until my 1st Amendment rights are stripped from me physically, I will continue to speak out as a civilian. I first heard this question asked when I served under GHW Bush (41) as a theoretical question. This time, the question has returned but with more urgency.
Why is this question being asked now?
This nation is becoming more polarized with each passing month. Many of you noticed that Americans are viewing each other with increasing hostility. There is very little or no compromise on issues which would not have divided us in the past. Just last year, this nation saw nearly year-long violent demonstrations by rioters who supported ANTIFA and BLM. The results of the elections, further exacerbated tensions.
There is historical precedence, where this nation had to answer this question. The Civil War in 1860 split this nation along geographical and cultural lines. Each officer and soldier from the South, had to search their hearts over the potential breakup of the US. Each soldier in the North had to ask the ultimate question as to whether they would fire on those soldiers from the South. For most southerners, this was not an easy decision, to turn away from their nation and side with their state. They knew what could very well (and did eventually) happen. We stopped seeing each other as Americans but instead as complete strangers.
We are now at a similar point in history. With the election of each political president, both sides have become polarized and instead of compromise, now see the opposite side as a danger to the country. This belief has filtered into the ranks of the military. A wise Master chief once told me that the military is a microcosm of American society. It reflects the hopes, dreams, values, instilled in it by that society. With each incoming administration, the military has been modified (to varying degrees) to reflect the desires and goals of that administration. This modification of the military is now occurring with accelerating frequency.
But let us look to the oath that we all took at some point in our lives.
Military Oath of Enlistment/Service
I, (state name of enlistee), 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; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. (So help me God)."
As some here have so aptly stated, the ultimate duty we took in the military was to defend the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. We will obey the orders of the POTUS and the orders of officers appointed over us according to regulations and the UCMJ. This raises a question of what is a lawful order? Who determines what is, “lawful”? How far is the military to go in the fulfillment of those orders? What happens if the leaders are misguided? What one side may see as legal and constitutional can be seen by others as purely undermining it.
I have read many responses on this post and I can see that politics is playing a very significant role on who should follow the order of the President. I would like to explain this another way. If it gets me kicked off this site-so be it. Without trying to be political here, let me play Devil’s Advocate. I have read some of the statements here by others who feel that orders from the current Commander in Chief, should be absolutely obeyed. Would you have felt the same way of those orders had come from the prior CIC?
We are taught in basic training to follow orders unquestioningly. We understand that unit cohesion and obedience to duty in the protection of our Constitution, is the sole purpose of our service. But we are also a Constitutional Republic. Our military is NOT comprised of unthinking and unfeeling machines whom we call soldiers, sailors, and airmen. We are taught from birth, what our country stands for. Most of us grew up idolizing a military life. I know I did. The best way we felt that we could express our love for this country was to join the military in defending it.
When former President Trump cancelled transgender people from serving, how well did that go with those who support it? There were many who called for the military to overthrow (then) president Trump) Now, the Secretary of Defense has ordered a 60-day stand-down for the military to address extremism in the ranks. A little research shows that this stand-down will focus almost exclusively on right-wing extremism. How is right-wing extremism defined and more importantly, WHO defines it? Ultimately the events of the past 13 months are why you are hearing this question with increasing frequency and urgency. The military HAS been impacted by what is going in society. It is being divided which I believe is intentional.
Will my response answer anyone’s questions? Probably not. I am not here to advocate for or against anything. However, this question this question is not going away. If it is swept under the rug-then we may see a repeat of the events of 1860. God forbid that should happen.

As a former NCO, I would advise you to be very careful with what you put out there. It is your duty to obey every lawful order, no matter the occupant of the white house or who is in charge. That being said, you took an oath. Having service members retake the oath now just because some supported a different administration is akin to having political purity tests. There have always been extremists in the military. They arr largely weeded out. But once the Major in Texas shot several service members after he was radicalized, was there the need for all to retake the oath. I am offended by the thought there is a need. My oath still stands! I was abhorred by what happened at the capitol. But those were the actions of a few and now every service member has to pay the political purity price for the actions of a few. If I were still in, I would have to seriously question this. If my first oath wasn't enough, why would a second be?

Very good question especially considering the recent house bill in regards to the 2nd amendment. The leftists want to ban all weapons and expect someone to go out an confiscate these weapons. Military and LEO’s take an oath and I for one believe my oath is to the constitution before any elected officials.