- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 34,817
- Reaction score
- 18,576
- Location
- Look to your right... I'm that guy.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Good post!I think the real answer to your theoretical questions is 'it depends on who would come out on top.' History is kind to victors.
In reality, to justify overthrowing a government would require not just a violation of the constitution or even repeated violations, it would require that the constitution itself...our form of government was under attack and at risk of destruction from 'enemies foreign and domestic.'
The crazies on the right like to hype up constitutional violations, real or perceived, as some kind of equivalent attack. It is far from it and something that we've never seen, or have any reason to believe is on the horizon near or far.
Also, some on here have indicated that not following unlawful orders is the same as protecting the constitution. It is not. Similarly, following lawful orders is not part of supporting and defending the constitution. One could, for example, be given a lawful order that violates the constitution or vice versa. In this case, the constitution would be the supreme authority. Soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines aren't expected or empowered to interpret the constitution, that is why their oath includes following the orders of the POTUS and officers appointed over them. It provides some cover to enlisted should they follow orders from the POTUS and/or officers that violates the constitution, whereas officers and the POTUS have no such cover. Lawful orders are simply orders that are in compliance with law.
I might only quibble with the idea that the Constitution isn't under attack. I don't think it's a coordinated effort by any means, but I do think that all the relatively small-ish violations, when added up, give a disturbing result.