Posted on Jan 3, 2016
If any President asks you to direct your military efforts against the People, would you obey the order?
15.6K
96
57
2
2
0
I am distinguishing between the individual or small group of terrorists and the individual or group that is defending the Constitutional rights afforded ALL Americans.
Political Science
Orders
Office of the President (POTUS)
What Would You Do
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 28
9
9
0
Assuming that you're posing a question centered upon an internal conflict within the United States, such a situation, regardless of where you stood, would be a disaster for us all.
(9)
(0)
7
7
0
Our system first and foremost uses the ballot box and the checks and balances between the branches of government to address differences of opinion as to what is or isn't constitutional. I think it has become a dangerous mythology that any American who happens to disagree with a political ruling has a right to take up arms against the government. That's what a lot of these so called militias preach.i say so called because while they have taken the term used in the constitution, these "militias" have no connection to the ones described. But the constitution addresses insurection and there have been anti insurrection laws on the books since 1792.
So for all the great talk about " needing a revolution now and then" the fact is our system is designed to avoid that very thing. But especially today, any group of dime store constitutional scholars seem to think it's part of being an American to threaten armed revolt whenever the government doesn't happen to agree with them.
So for all the great talk about " needing a revolution now and then" the fact is our system is designed to avoid that very thing. But especially today, any group of dime store constitutional scholars seem to think it's part of being an American to threaten armed revolt whenever the government doesn't happen to agree with them.
(7)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
The government should always agree with the People.
Regarding Constitutional scholars, the scholarship is only needed when judicial rulings depart from the foundational document where a ruling or judicial opinion become defacto Constitution.
Regarding Constitutional scholars, the scholarship is only needed when judicial rulings depart from the foundational document where a ruling or judicial opinion become defacto Constitution.
(3)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
LTC (Join to see) - but the issue is that "the people" is hardly a monolithic entity that agrees on key issues. In fact, on most of the hot button issues it seems we are split almost 50-50, which is also reflected in the SCOTUS decisions that tend to be 5-4 one way or the other.
As for constitutional scholarship, the truth is that many sentences/wording in the constitution can be interpreted in different ways. You can't simply rely on each person to come up with their own idea of what the constitution means. Especially considering many just parrot what they read on websites without any further research to determine if there are other views on that.
For example, the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court has publically stated that the freedom of religion right only applies to freedom to choose between the various christian denominations and no ther religions. Because, as he states, they didn't bring bhuddah or the koran over on the ships. Other groups are starting to spread that idea as well. So if someone decides to attack mosques and shoots at police responding, is that OK simply because of the way he reads the first amendment? Of course not.
As for constitutional scholarship, the truth is that many sentences/wording in the constitution can be interpreted in different ways. You can't simply rely on each person to come up with their own idea of what the constitution means. Especially considering many just parrot what they read on websites without any further research to determine if there are other views on that.
For example, the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court has publically stated that the freedom of religion right only applies to freedom to choose between the various christian denominations and no ther religions. Because, as he states, they didn't bring bhuddah or the koran over on the ships. Other groups are starting to spread that idea as well. So if someone decides to attack mosques and shoots at police responding, is that OK simply because of the way he reads the first amendment? Of course not.
(4)
(0)
SFC Pete Kain
LTC (Join to see) - The Government is supposed to be the people, sadly it is no longer so, now it is a conglomerate of big money and special interest groups. So like good peons we should just shut up and accept the decisions of our betters. That may be a rough way to put it, but it's how I see it.
(0)
(0)
LTC Raymond Buenteo
The ballet boxes, the House of Representatives and the entire federal, state and local system is compromised. Current government momentum is moving towards a socialist totalitarian system. President Trump was not tactful in his dealings but he did have the best interests of the country and Americans at heart. Biden and Harris represent the democrats and the democrats agenda. Their rhetoric paints a dim future for freedom in America. Their harsh rhetoric towards former Trump supporters paints a Stalin model of punishing dissenters.
(1)
(0)
6
6
0
I have thought long and hard about this for years. My answer is no, I would not. Nor would I if that same order came from the Governor of the State of Oregon.
(6)
(0)
SMSgt Keith Klug
I will back you up on that. Illegal orders are easy to determine. They violate the constitution and laws already on the books.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google