HELPING HILLARY PICK OUT HER INAUGURAL GOWN!The jokes write themselves!
Although the federal government is not the same thing as "the state," citizens cannot unilaterally declare war on citizens or nations. Individual states are also not empowered to declare war.
Private citizens are also not empowered to declare their own laws, or to declare laws unconstitutional. You may express those opinions, you may bring a lawsuit to that effect (if you have standing). I.e. there's a process for that, because a state cannot possibly function if private citizens can arbitrarily refuse, at the time and place of their choosing, to disobey a law they classify as "unconstitutional."
Here's the Armed Forces oath as an example:
I, (NAME), 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; 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.
I support a government by and for the people. We don't live in a totalitarian state, and suggesting so indicates that you have no concept of life in a totalitarian state.do we support a gov of by and for the people ? or a totalitarian,intrusive, and dictatorial regime? do we support freedom? or a police state?
That's quite the leap of logic.or a person who utilizes the constitution can find themselves facing backlash from forces within the u.s. and then find no help or support from government agencies. This causes me to believe the gov is an enemy of the people and the constitution.
Again, individual citizens are not empowered to unilaterally declare that "X is a traitor" or "we are at war with Canada" or "the ban on smoking in a restaurant is unconstitutional."
However, I would say that any armed forces units, or ex-military, who try to band together to overthrow the federal government will almost certainly face charges of treason, and that is how the law is designed to work. There is nothing new about this, and it's been the law of the land from the start. So if you regard something like this as showing the "government as an enemy of the people and the constitution," then the federal government has been an "enemy" since day 1. Now that's patriotism!
Soldiers cannot summarily execute an unlawful combatant captured during a conflict. Per the Geneva Convention, anyone captured in the field is a prisoner of war, until a tribunal determines their status. Even if found to be unlawful combatants, they still retain all their human rights, including a right to due process.
Summary executions are not legal per US law, most nation's laws, and international law. So no, summary execution (and torture, btw) of unlawful combatants is neither legal nor ethical.