He is sworn to defend the Constitution from foreign or domestic harm, his president and commanding officers. His commanding officers are not sworn to obey the CIC however. Are you not curious why that is? Think president usurper. Even the military has a way to protect itself from being misued by the president.
"the party of no,""the party of never" and "the party of no new ideas."
- Thread starter uscitizen
- Start date
He is sworn to defend the Constitution from foreign or domestic harm, his president and commanding officers. His commanding officers are not sworn to obey the CIC however. Are you not curious why that is? Think president usurper. Even the military has a way to protect itself from being misued by the president.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
you really are stupid, aren't you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marine_Corps
created Nov 10, 1775.
No, we are not. FYI, the government did not write the constitution or bill of rights, we the people did. We created the judicial branch to settle disputes between the different branches of the government and to provide a buffer between the encroachment of government and the people.
We do indeed have processes that we must follow, however, there are 4 very specific boxes that patriots have to use.
soap box
ballot box
jury box
cartridge box
evince
Truthmatters
wow they did exsist , I truely did not realise the marines were that old.
Cool.
Now what about the rest of that sentance you tainwallow?
When the founders wrote that constitution they put in of, by and for. WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT.
In that government the scotus determines how that constitution is applied to todays issues. They already desided that gun laws are OK.
YOU do not get to deside that the scotus is wrong and its time for a revolution.
Now if you insist on talking revolution because your party did not win then you are no fucking patriot, you are a traitor.
Cool.
Now what about the rest of that sentance you tainwallow?
When the founders wrote that constitution they put in of, by and for. WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT.
In that government the scotus determines how that constitution is applied to todays issues. They already desided that gun laws are OK.
YOU do not get to deside that the scotus is wrong and its time for a revolution.
Now if you insist on talking revolution because your party did not win then you are no fucking patriot, you are a traitor.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
Isn't it? The Marines have a rich and glorious history, though a few blackeyes, unfortunately.
If you can dispense with the ad homs, i'll be happy to educate you further.
Art 3, Sec 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Now, the bill of rights are also considered amendments to the constitution, correct?
In that respect, there should be some cases where the goverment has no authority to bring any charges nor would the courts have any jurisdiction, like 'congress shall make no law', 'shall not be infringed', 'no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause', 'No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury', 'the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State', 'the right of trial by jury shall be preserved', 'Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.', 'shall not be construed to deny or disparage others'.
See, the founders of this nation did everything they needed to when writing the constitution/bill of rights to limit the federal government in supplying only the necessary powers needed to regulate the few things necessary for people to be free.
Actually, we do, through those very processes I described in another thread. If SCOTUS decides wrongly, like they did in Kelo, we get to speak out, vote on it, try the cases, and if all else fails, rebuild it. We only needed to go to step two after Kelo because of the huge outrage from the people.
as much as you need to believe that I'm a total rightwing nut, i'm really not. I haven't been on the board that long and therefore, you didn't get to see any of my rantings about the unconstitutional acts committed by that administration. Rendition is totally illegal, the gitmo prisons and being held without trial was totally illegal, the warrantless wiretapping is totally unconstitutional, and I could go on but you probably would just dismiss my viewpoint out of hand because you NEED to believe i'm a 'rightwinger'.
If you wish to continue the absurd idea that i'm opposed to President Obama simply because he's black or a democrat, then no amount of additional explanation by me is going to sway you any differently.
I'm very much a classic constitutionalist and I firmly believe that it's a static legal document, not a living one by modern definition.
Epicurus
Reasonable
The Supreme Court.
uscitizen
Villified User
All troops swear to obey the presidents orders.
He is the CIC of the military forces.
uscitizen
Villified User
Not as painful as a marine who does not understand his oath he swore to.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
you are as stupid as she is then. I told you the order of those priorities, yet you continue to disavow it. you're wrong. A marines first and foremost duty is to the defense of the constitution, second is to the president.
ask asshat, he'll tell you straight.
grind would just lambast you about it and I don't think you're ready for that kind of whippin.
Good Luck
New member
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.
cawacko
Well-known member
Pretty much a regular occurance wouldn't you say? Yet she keeps coming back for more...
"I, _____, do solemnly swear 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).
I will note that it is "according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice" which also states that illegal orders should be refused.
You are however, somewhat correct.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
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.
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.
3. Let the People therefore vote with their feet to decide which system they like best.
The officer's oath reads as such because the final decision for determining if an order is manifestly illegal is his.
Army Officer Appointment Acceptance and Oath of Office
I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and 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.
A military person may legally refuse an order if it is manifestly illegal, no matter if it be the president of the US issuing it.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
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.
uscitizen
Villified User
Grind has tried.
Don't you wonder why he is not hammering me on this topic?
Sorry you did not understand what you williingly swore to.
But then you were a marine.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
You're not defending the constitution. You're assaulting others (sans provocation) to force your narrow, incorrect interpretation of the constitution on them. There's a difference. And you're going to die while you're out there killing innocents who have no bone in your idiotic ideological argument. You are such a petty mans its ridiculous.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Owning a gun is absolutely zero protection of the constitution. Only belief in the constitution defends the constitution. Guns are worthless because they can just as easily be used AGAINST the constitution as FOR it, in fact its MORE likely, as people like you prove.