Posted on Jan 2, 2014
590
574
16
Recently I've been hearing countless remarks, and seeing posts from soldiers and veterans alike. Down talking our commander in chief. How do you feel about this? Should this be allowed within our ranks? Does freedom of speech really play a part?<br><br>
Posted in these groups: 
Barack Obama
Respect
Barack Obama Respect
Edited 12 y ago
Posted 12 y ago
Responses: 929
5
5
0
When you enlist into any branch of the armed forces of the U.S. You give up your right to free speech. As a member or the military it is your job to follow legal orders without question.
(5)
(0)
SGT James P. Davidson, MSM
TSgt Guajardo, the Constitution is not subject to interpretation. If it was, it would be changed regularly, yet it remains constant. Consider it 'etched in stone' as opposed to painted in water. One can 'interpret' it any way they like, but the words do not change, the meaning does not change, the intent does not change.<br><br>If even ONE portion is open to interpretation, then the whole thing is open to interpretation, and therefore the whole thing is invalid. <br><br>Think about it.
(4)
(0)
SFC Matthew Parker
<p>SGT Davidson, TSgt Guajardo,</p><p>The application of law under the constitution is reinterpreted in a court every day. The words don't change true, but times do and the courts use the intent of the constitution to guide them in the enforcement of laws and regulations. </p><p>Tax law, gay rights, abortion, religious expression, land ownership rights, and gun laws have all been enacted, changed and changed again as each court decision is handed down. </p><p><br></p><p> In the courts now is a challenge to the automatic granting of US citizenship to children born to illegals because there is within the constitution "mixed "language that could mean the administration could in fact stop a child born here from becoming a citizen. </p><p><br></p><p> This will go nowhere and be rejected this time, but what happens 10-20 years from now? </p><p><br></p><p>We are not constitutional scholars, lawyers or elected officials, so our comments and feelings are going to be restricted to the dinner table and RallyPoint. But I thank you for your exchange on this topic. </p>
(2)
(0)
SGT James P. Davidson, MSM
SFC Parker, you are correct: it is "reinterpreted every day", and that is a major portion of the basis for problem. If the Constitution does not cover it, it is retained by the individual states, or by the People. <br><br>So far as laws for or against anything not covered, those fall under the Tenth Amendment. <br><br>Speaking on "gun laws": Regardless of what the Courts have said to the contrary, 2A is in basic English, and means what it says. Laws to the contrary ARE "infringements". They violate the Law of the Land.<br><br>So you can see, from that basic example, how "reinterpreting" the Constitution can be severely problematic.<br><br>I support the Court challenging automatic citizenship to illegals, regardless of age. 14A is rather plain, as well, and does not grant automatic citizenship status to children born here of illegal immigrant parents.<br><br>There is a regular usurpation of power and authority running rampant throughout all three branches of government, and has been that way for a few decades. The Executive sidesteps Congress. Our elected Senators and Representatives do not represent the States or We the People, but their own interests, where we are but a thorn in their collective side, and the Courts overturn legal, Constitutional voting results at will.<br><br>This is ALL due to "reinterpreting" the Constitution.<br><br>So how do actively serving personnel know exactly what they have sworn to uphold and defend, unless someone has the balls to tell and to teach them?
(3)
(0)
SSgt James Stanley
Well put, SGT Davidson, I dislike it when someone tries to reinterpret the Constitution according to his own political beliefs when what it says is so plain. I've never been able to understand how they got separation of church and state out of the 1st Amendment.
(2)
(0)
5
5
0
<div class="rank_badge"> </div><div class="clear"><font size="1"></font></div><div class="clear"><font size="1"></font></div><div id="response_31283" class="response_body"><div id="collapsed_content_31283"><p>To add to what SFC Corey Matteri, stated before:</p><p> </p><p>Article 88 of the UCMJ states the following:</p><p> </p><p>“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the <br>Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military <br>department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of <br>any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or <br>present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”</p><p> </p><p>In addition, for all the social media politicians. The army has published a social media handbook for soldiers. The handbook states "Soldiers using social media must abide by the UCMJ at all times. Commenting, posting or lnking to material that violates the UCMJ or basic rules of Soldier conduct is prohibited. Social media provides the opportunity for Soldiers to speak freely about their activities and interests. However, Soldiers are subject to UCMJ even when off duty, so talking negatively about supervisors or releasing sensitive information is punishable under the UCMJ. It is important that all Soldiers know hatt once they log on to a social media platform, they still represent the Army".</p><p> </p><p>Leaders please read and share. Let us adhere to the standard.</p><p> </p><p>http://www.slideshare.net/USArmySocialMedia/social-media-handbook-2013</p></div></div><div class="pta-link-card"><div class="pta-link-card-picture"><img src="http://public.slidesharecdn.com/images/logo.png"></div><div class="pta-link-card-content"><div class="pta-link-card-title"><a href="http://www.slideshare.net/USArmySocialMedia/social-media-handbook-2013" target="_blank">Social Media Handbook 2013</a></div><div class="pta-link-card-description">This document provides extensive social media guidance. It contains information for Army leaders, guidance for Army Families, operations security tips, branding</div></div><div style="clear: both;"></div><div class="pta-box-hide"><i class="icon-remove"></i></div></div>
(5)
(0)
SGT Michael McMahon
That Social Media Handbook has only one good use, and that is as toilet paper in the field. The military are the defenders of the Constitution, and not political oppressors for use by any political hack. Next thing you know it, the UCMJ will be modified by the Administration to order the viewing of service members ballots and punishment of those who would dare to vote against the Party in power. Our Nation is heading down that road, as the President uses the IRS to target his political opponents already, and thinks the Constitution is an unnecessary hindrance to his plans. Best to remember WHo you work for, as it is not the President, Congress or any Appointee, you work for the Tax Paying Citizens of the United States of America, period! Any service member, who thinks it is the other way, better be prepared to be on the other end of a rifle held by a Tax Paying Citizen of the United States, like myself, who knows that the Constitution is there to limit the Powers of the Government and Protect the Citizens from Tyranny by the Government, and has the military training to put to use to protect the Constitution.
(4)
(0)
MSG Mitch Dowler
Regulations do not preempt the Constitution which is the supreme law of the land. Not so sure that factual criticism of the President can be considered contemptuous either. Speaking negatively about a supervisor is not illegal either if the statements are factual. I was once told to remove an "Impeach Clinton" bumper sticker from my car while on active duty. I explained and showed where impeachment was a Constitutional legal process and the matter was dropped.<br>
(4)
(0)
CWO2 Shelby DuBois
Quoting regs in an effort to silence those that are you find disagreeable is reprehensible. As is low ball name calling like "for all you social media politicians" which is only baiting your antagonists. If your only argument about the opinions voiced is that it is illegal to voice said opinion then you should keep your own opinion on the matter to yourself as well.
(2)
(0)
5
5
0
I for one believe (and Im sure Im being redundant) that as a service member you WILL respect the RANK/OFFICE. You can dislike the person all you want but dont cross the line where you disrespect the person and the office. I admire the President in some of the things he's done and there are some things I dont quite agree with such as all the proposed/ensuing cuts to the military but I try my best to keep my comments to myself so as to not cause conflict. My question is this: If we as the military are the very ones defending/protecting certain freedoms/rights such as freedom of speech in this case, why do we get the ugly eye when we try to exercise that right? Yes we are to show respect to the office/rank of those appointed over us as outlined in the regulations and UCMJ but how do you expect the military to be 'cheerful' in the execution of its duties when the very people who are sworn to serve the people and protect our interests castrate us at every turn. We protect the people, who protects us?
(5)
(0)
Suspended Profile
Stopping soldiers and veterans from expressing their views is inconsistent with the first amendment. As long as remarks aren't inflammatory or threatening (directly or indirectly) it should be looked at as freedom of speech. In my personal opinion it is unprofessional to speak disrespectfully about your leadership in an open forum.
4
4
0
4
4
0
Veterans are free to say what they wish. Active duty must remember that whoever it is, regardless of how you feel, he or she is your Commander in Chief.
(4)
(0)
Suspended Profile
Exactly right... Veterans are free to do as they like - though in some cases their VA benefits could be in jeopardy...
Active Military Enlisted, Officers and Warrant Officers have to understand that while they do not swear allegiance to an individual (like in some countries), the president is the commander-in-chief. So like him (or her) or not, voted for him (or her) or not, they are your boss and you are expected to behave as a professional...
Personally I despise ALL politicians, however, my personal feelings do not stop me from doing my duty as directed and rendering honors when appropriate.
Active Military Enlisted, Officers and Warrant Officers have to understand that while they do not swear allegiance to an individual (like in some countries), the president is the commander-in-chief. So like him (or her) or not, voted for him (or her) or not, they are your boss and you are expected to behave as a professional...
Personally I despise ALL politicians, however, my personal feelings do not stop me from doing my duty as directed and rendering honors when appropriate.
4
4
0
I have no problem when they are out of uniform and off base. When in uniform, on base and on duty need to use discretion, tactic and responsibility when down talking anyone within the ranks from CIC to E-1. Just because you put your mark on the Dotted Line doesn't erase your Rights under the Bill of Rights. They are Amended for the Military Protocol. If someone is doing a Piss Poor job/performance, then corrective action should take place to include the CIC (Congress/Senate).
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
Good. Doesn't matter which party. It means we aren't north korea. The moment we cannot criticize our leaders is the moment we lose the essence of the United States of America. You can never fix anything you can't bring to light.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
It’s our right. Our brother and sisters fought and died so we can have that right.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
This is what makes america great. No matter where you are or what your branch of service is we are all entitled to an opinion. As long as its an opinion or disprovement and thats how far it goes then thats how far it goes.
(4)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google