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

I agree but when would you say that moment is? Is it when they change or go around the constitution with laws that make us as Venezuela is or is after we are all being killed for not conforming, begging for food and medical supplies?
I see the problem but I do not see a solution. To early and we go against our true constitution and to late we are at their mercy.

POINT: Look at the CURRENT misuse of the National Guard in D.C. This is strictly BS POLITICAL!

MSgt Mike P. - Mike, good point. I am wondering how NG ops can be reconciled with Posse Comitatus in the D of C.

Lt Col Timothy Cassidy-Curtis - that is a good question.

I think things are getting out of hand. I supported Trump and I know all my friends did. None of us would attack the White house without justifiable cause. That being a complete breach of the laws of the constitution. But even then we would not attack it because we know we could not win in an open battle. It would be a gorilla war at best.
So why the barricade or fences?
Why the troops?
That makes you ask the question are they planning to do something that actually goes against the constitution that forces these issues?

CWO3 Jim Grindstaff - I disagree with you I have read the oath and if you want to understand why I think as I do, the oath is to the constitution first then to the leadership. There is nothing in the oath about the government.

"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;". This is first and foremost in the oath. You are swearing to protect the constitution not the government. They are two separate things. So if this part of oath to the constitution is broken by the government or officers in charge you would be braking the oath to follow that order because at that point it would be an illegal order.

This is where military justice starts when an order is illegal.
Then you are swearing to "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." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962)."

Below is the whole oath so that it can be seen I have not changed anything.

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; 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." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

SPC Curtis Underwood My "at no point" comment focuses on the word "Separate". Separation from the government of the constitution is a separation from the constitution.

LTC (Join to see) - You stated "You don't follow illegal orders but turning on the constitution is the government, the government is the military. There are many things we can do to resist an illegal or immoral government but the military cannot and should not separate from the government."
I disagree because of the separation of powers among other things. The constitution is the law we all obey. The government is the governing body that is supposed to govern by the constitutional laws. The Military is the organization that is supposed to first protect the constitution. Our oath has nothing in it about the government.
These are three separate bodies. The constitution being the highest of all. The military does answer to the government up to the point that an illegal order is given by the government. If that order is not rescinded by the checks and balance system that is in place then it falls on each individual be they officer or enlisted to evaluate that order as to its legality(since we swear an oath to the constitution then this has to be constitutional laws). This is in the regulations that state each member of the service has the duty to evaluate every order given to is legality.

LTC (Join to see) - Understand this I mean no disrespect to you and only want you to see this from the perspective of the government issuing an Illegal order that has be made legal in the governments eyes by new laws that circumvent the constitution. Which in the constitutions eyes would be illegal. Such an order to confiscate legally owned guns from people that were legal law abiding citizens up to the point the laws were changed would in the eyes of the constitution be illegal because of the second amendment who's meaning has been in discussion with lawyers that have tried to have it's meaning changed in courts like the supreme court.

SPC Curtis Underwood - Officers cannot resign during their first 6 year bid. They're tied up tighter than an enlisted man during that period. As you should know, LTs don't fuck with 1SG and listen to SFC and CPTs don't fuck with CSM and listen to 1SG, but you better bet your ass that officers run the service. You might want to, as they say, unfuck your perceptions in that regard.

The conscience of the service is carried on the enlisted man's back, so I would commiserate somewhat with https://www.rallypoint.com/profiles/893441-cpl-curtis-underwood and say that there lies the ultimate bulwark against tyranny.

SPC Curtis Underwood - I found you can pretty much request any type of personnel action. Whether your request is approved, is another matter.

LTC Ken Connolly - That is true about any request.
The decision effecting the whole military will be made by the upper ranks but I ask what if those upper ranks make the decision to uphold an order that goes against the constitution. Is the lower ranking officers and enlisted men not supposed to uphold their oaths and question those orders? You see where the conflict comes in.
As to going to your congressman or representative that takes time and if your given an order it is expected to be carried out right then.

We now have the conservative upper ranking officers either retire or ousted out by the present administration. So now we have liberal upper ranks. Now we have most of the positions taken by liberals that would stop such an order.
So now I ask you to reconsider how you stated the above. It is not that I am trying to force anyone to make a decision, it is I am trying to ensure that decision if they ever have to make it is the correct one.
If this goes against the upper echelon's decision as it should if they are going against the constitution then the upper echelon is in the wrong.

Your comment is not clear.
Are you trying to say that when your enlistment is up so is the oath you took. If so that is not true. See there is two things make that untrue first off there is nothing in the oath that says it can be canceled and secondly an oath is taken until it is completed and you have not completed this oath just because your no longer in service. No regulation can change this oath that is the reason the oath is stated as it is. So you are obligated to this oath for as long as you live.

Oath of Enlistment
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; 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. (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).