"the party of no,""the party of never" and "the party of no new ideas."

evince said:
Now that is not what the founders intended.

They did not intend for you to misinterpret the constitution and kill me because you joined a service that didnt even exsist when they were alive.

This is the part you always miss in this equation.

Your interpritation of the constitution does not give you the right to kill anyone.

You are supposed to trust in the Scotus's interpretation of the constitution as it applies to our laws.

You are not allowed to kill the president because you think he is not follwong the constitution if the scotus says he is.

YOU are not the final "desider"
Click to expand...

There is no right to revolution in the constitution. If the founders would've wanted it, they would've put it in there. Like the French did. Funny how that little experiment worked out, huh?
 
Good Luck said:
Looks to me he understands the oath far better than you do.



Note the bolded part. The UCMJ specifically states we are bound to obey LAWFUL orders only. Since we take an oath to obey orders according to the UCMJ, we are NOT bound to obey unlawful - which includes unconstitutional - orders from anyone, from our squad leader all the way up through the President.

The first phrases also binds us to the duty of overthrowing any leadership which consistently and repeatedly issues orders which threaten the People's rights under the Constitution.
Click to expand...

WHO decides if its unconstitutional or not? You?
 
Southern Man said:
Here's one:

1. Require the Federal government to abide strictly to the 9th and 10th Amendments. This will require powers that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution to be retained by the People and the States, respectively. In a practical sense this means that 99% or so of federal agencies become immediately abolished.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. You are a fucking idiot. The only thing that would be ruled unconstitutional is the things the Republicans put in.

Southern Man said:
2. If States like Massachusetts, California and Vermont want to resurrect their share of the abolished federal programs, let them. If States like Utah, Texas and South Carolina don't want these programs, then so be it.
Click to expand...

Then why don't we just abolish the entire government. If you want police protection, you pay for it. If you can't afford it, tough shit. You should've worked harder.

Again, many things are inneficient to do on a state level. You make it sound so simple, like there is no-trade off between subfederal units doing it and it not being efficient. But if 50 different states have 50 different pieces of environmental legislation, it makes it impossible for the companies to sort through all of it. And if Texas decides to become a toxic waste dump, the radiation affects people in New Mexico as well. And if Delaware decides to get rid of all financial regulations to attract business, it creates a race to the bottom in financial regulations that makes all states worse off. And if Mississippi decides to get rid of medicare so it doesn't have to pay for those dumb niggers anymore and it lets them die just because of the shitty ass excuses for human beings they happened to be born around, that's pure evil, and is unacceptable. And if Mississippi decides to legalize the lynching of black people, it's a universal human rights abuse. Fuck states rights - human rights come first. There are no states rights.


Southern Man said:
3. Let the People therefore vote with their feet to decide which system they like best.
Click to expand...

Why don't you move to Nazi Germany then?
 
uscitizen said:
Your oath did not give you that choice it. It did not say defend the constitution over the president nor did it have an "or" in there. It actually has an "and".

Per your oath you MUST follow the presidents orders.

dumbass marines do not even undertand their oath.

Did you realize that the marines started out as an armed force to protect a ships captain from his crew?
Click to expand...

Wrong spanky, military regulations stipulate LAWFUL and UNLAWFUL orders. If Obama said "Chief, I need you to go back on active duty and kill a commie for mommy and obamy" I would render the sharpest salute I could muster, enthusiasticaly yell "AYE, AYE SIR!", get my hair cut and see if my old uniforms still fit. OTOH, if he said, "Chief, I need you to go back on active duty and confiscate all the privately owned firearms in your area of responsibility", my response would be ":321:"

NO PERSON TRUMPS THE CONSTITUTION, NOT EVEN "YOUR" PRESIDENT.
 
Beefy said:
You can take the lowbrow out of the backwoods, but you can't make it drink.
Click to expand...

You can make this gentleman drink, though. Oh, boy, how you can make him drink! I am on my second homemade Cuba Libre (Bacardi and Diet Coke in this case), and it rocks!! I love the 21st Amendment!!

:shots:
 
callinectes said:
He is a self-proclaimed communist, when has there EVER been anything remotely "rational" about them?
Click to expand...

If you mean Watermark (now calling himself Watermarx for fun), he is an emo spaz kid, who is not serious about communism, nor indeed, many things that he says on this site.

Watermark generally spews out hyperbole, which does stand for leftism in general, but you have to be somewhat intelligent to understand the actual points and prejudices he is espoucing, and distinguish the intellectualism from the "THEY SHOULD ALL BE HANGED!!1" theatrics.
 
Good Luck said:
Looks to me he understands the oath far better than you do.



Note the bolded part. The UCMJ specifically states we are bound to obey LAWFUL orders only. Since we take an oath to obey orders according to the UCMJ, we are NOT bound to obey unlawful - which includes unconstitutional - orders from anyone, from our squad leader all the way up through the President.

The first phrases also binds us to the duty of overthrowing any leadership which consistently and repeatedly issues orders which threaten the People's rights under the Constitution.
Click to expand...


So each soldier has supreme court power to determine the lawfullness of all orders?

Seems like you are shooting around quite a bit of the constitution there scud.

The soldier refusing would of course go thru a courtmartial to determine if the order was legal or not and next stop could be Levenworth.
 
callinectes said:
Wrong spanky, military regulations stipulate LAWFUL and UNLAWFUL orders. If Obama said "Chief, I need you to go back on active duty and kill a commie for mommy and obamy" I would render the sharpest salute I could muster, enthusiasticaly yell "AYE, AYE SIR!", get my hair cut and see if my old uniforms still fit. OTOH, if he said, "Chief, I need you to go back on active duty and confiscate all the privately owned firearms in your area of responsibility", my response would be ":321:"

NO PERSON TRUMPS THE CONSTITUTION, NOT EVEN "YOUR" PRESIDENT.
Click to expand...

yours did :D
 
SmarterThanYou said:
if there were actually, you'd never hear of them for political reasons, but I'd say that there are at least a few throughout the last 75 years.

Also, to add to that, as a general rule, officers below the rank of major usually would never give an illegal order.
Click to expand...

also on your also.
You were not in ground combat in Nam were you?
 
uscitizen said:
So each soldier has supreme court power to determine the lawfullness of all orders?

Seems like you are shooting around quite a bit of the constitution there scud.

The soldier refusing would of course go thru a courtmartial to determine if the order was legal or not and next stop could be Levenworth.
Click to expand...

Its a tought situation. I think "A Few Good Men" is a great example of how convoluted it can be, since it is extremely difficult for a servicemember to stand up to authority, since they may risk never being redeemed for their efforts and ruin their career and reputations.
 
Threedee said:
Its a tought situation. I think "A Few Good Men" is a great example of how convoluted it can be, since it is extremely difficult for a servicemember to stand up to authority, since they may risk never being redeemed for their efforts and ruin their career and reputations.
Click to expand...

Yeah it is tough and not standing up can be tougher, costing lives sometimes.

I spent a bit of stockde time and got busted 2 stripes. But still knew I had done it right and would not do it any different in the same situation.
 
Threedee said:
If you mean Watermark (now calling himself Watermarx for fun), he is an emo spaz kid, who is not serious about communism, nor indeed, many things that he says on this site.

Watermark generally spews out hyperbole, which does stand for leftism in general, but you have to be somewhat intelligent to understand the actual points and prejudices he is espoucing, and distinguish the intellectualism from the "THEY SHOULD ALL BE HANGED!!1" theatrics.
Click to expand...

As I suspected.
 
uscitizen said:
So each soldier has supreme court power to determine the lawfullness of all orders?

Seems like you are shooting around quite a bit of the constitution there scud.

The soldier refusing would of course go thru a courtmartial to determine if the order was legal or not and next stop could be Levenworth.
Click to expand...

do you have ANY legal knowledge at all? The Supreme Court of this country has flat out said that NOBODY has to obey an unconstitutional law or order. Do we convene a committee every time someone issues an order or the gov creates a law? I don't. It's pretty fucking obvious when some laws or orders are against the constitution and if they are, I don't have to follow them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top