• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Now Trump is at war with the generals

beerftw said:
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.

There is the oath, it does not just say the consitution, but also says the president and the officers appointed over, meaning the oath swears to uphold the chain of command, as well as the constitution, but puts the constitution first.


So far there has been nothing trump has done to justify disobeying his orders on constitutional grounds, the people claiming such have never read the constitution.
Click to expand...

Hey my own schtick is to be snarky while we see your schtick is to be snarly and snarling. I tweak while you denounce, scold, dismiss arbitrarily and summarily.

Above and beyond either or both however, the armed forces oath is not to any one official of the government. The military oath is not to any single person. Nether is the armed forces oath to the chain of command which has officers both military and civil in it. The armed forces oath is not to the UCMJ or anyone in the code. All of this is subordinate to the Constitution. That is, the oath both civil and military is to the Constitution period.

The oath binds the armed forces and the "We the People" of the Constitution Preamble and the Constitution itself -- directly and inseparably. Your reading of the Constitution is pedestrian, ordinary, cliched, superficial, trite. This is because no man is above the law and we are talking about the basic law of the land. Your pronouncements defy all legal doctrines civil and military to include historically going back to Washington himself who successfully advocated the doctrine to the Constitutional Convention.

Washington presented the oath as a means for the armed forces to respond to a tyrant ruler gaining power and that no single branch of the three branches could gain tyrannical powers -- to include over the armed forces. The armed forces especially and in particular. So your denial of this -- were you aware of it -- is absolute and it is wrong in the absolute. Accordingly, you need to place yourself under the Constitution and not above it. No person in this country is above the Constitution which is the basic law of the land.

This oath was the first act of the first Congress of the United States, as Washington had expressed it should be. As general Washington was appointed by the Continental Congress and reported to the Congress exclusively. Washgton did not trust having a president who was also commander in chief of the armed forces. So Washington successfully circumscribed the CinC authority and powers over the armed forces. The consequence is that the armed forces and the People are one, not the armed forces and any one man. Which places a tyrant Potus/CinC and an executive branch exaggerated by authority and power out of the equalizing equation. Necessarily so.

So I welcome presenting this to a wannabe Russian corporal.
 
Tangmo said:
Hey my own schtick is to be snarky while we see your schtick is to be snarly and snarling. I tweak while you denounce, scold, dismiss arbitrarily and summarily.

Above and beyond either or both however, the armed forces oath is not to any one official of the government. The military oath is not to any single person. Nether is the armed forces oath to the chain of command which has officers both military and civil in it. The armed forces oath is not to the UCMJ or anyone in the code. All of this is subordinate to the Constitution. That is, the oath both civil and military is to the Constitution period.

The oath binds the armed forces and the "We the People" of the Constitution Preamble and the Constitution itself -- directly and inseparably. Your reading of the Constitution is pedestrian, ordinary, cliched, superficial, trite. This is because no man is above the law and we are talking about the basic law of the land. Your pronouncements defy all legal doctrines civil and military to include historically going back to Washington himself who successfully advocated the doctrine to the Constitutional Convention.

Washington presented the oath as a means for the armed forces to respond to a tyrant ruler gaining power and that no single branch of the three branches could gain tyrannical powers -- to include over the armed forces. The armed forces especially and in particular. So your denial of this -- were you aware of it -- is absolute and it is wrong in the absolute. Accordingly, you need to place yourself under the Constitution and not above it. No person in this country is above the Constitution which is the basic law of the land.

This oath was the first act of the first Congress of the United States, as Washington had expressed it should be. As general Washington was appointed by the Continental Congress and reported to the Congress exclusively. Washgton did not trust having a president who was also commander in chief of the armed forces. So Washington successfully circumscribed the CinC authority and powers over the armed forces. The consequence is that the armed forces and the People are one, not the armed forces and any one man. Which places a tyrant Potus/CinC and an executive branch exaggerated by authority and power out of the equalizing equation. Necessarily so.

So I welcome presenting this to a wannabe Russian corporal.
Click to expand...

The oast in general yes puts the constitution and the people over the potus, but also explicitly points out obeying the potus, this means the orders of the potus exceed all authority except the constitution. This means generals are at the whim of the potus unless he does something unconstitutional, which at this case pulling out of syria is fully unconstitutional, meaning generals have no legal or moral authority to disobey such orders, hence the resignations.


And you need to stop with this wannabe russian corporal crap, I am sorry you are butthurt over losing debates because you post a speech by a general and spam a2/ad and gen 6 warfare as proof russia is nothing without even understanding what you are posting, instead of anylizing strengths/weaknesses of nato/russia and fully understanding where each is at an advantage to the other, and how to adopt strategy to counter it.
 
beerftw said:
The oast in general yes puts the constitution and the people over the potus, but also explicitly points out obeying the potus, this means the orders of the potus exceed all authority except the constitution. This means generals are at the whim of the potus unless he does something unconstitutional, which at this case pulling out of syria is fully unconstitutional, meaning generals have no legal or moral authority to disobey such orders, hence the resignations.


And you need to stop with this wannabe russian corporal crap, I am sorry you are butthurt over losing debates because you post a speech by a general and spam a2/ad and gen 6 warfare as proof russia is nothing without even understanding what you are posting, instead of anylizing strengths/weaknesses of nato/russia and fully understanding where each is at an advantage to the other, and how to adopt strategy to counter it.
Click to expand...

Blue: There's no but.

Red: Absurd.

The second paragraph rattles off nonsense. It is written in a frantic desperation.

No one needs listen to an unreserved advocate of Russia who posts boldly elsewhere of a fantasy Russian superiority in military capacity, capability and prowess. Boosting the Russian armed force dependent on 18 year old conscripts whose compelled presence is for one year only is ridiculous and moreover transparent. Your vacuous claims concerning the USA Constitution are vapid as would be expected of a corporal over there. They impress no one. Worse they are as deliberate and calculated as they are a failure. It is reminiscent of the expired Russian Soviet Union.
 
Tangmo said:
Blue: There's no but.

Red: Absurd.

The second paragraph rattles off nonsense. It is written in a frantic desperation.

No one needs listen to an unreserved advocate of Russia who posts boldly elsewhere of a fantasy Russian superiority in military capacity, capability and prowess. Boosting the Russian armed force dependent on 18 year old conscripts whose compelled presence is for one year only is ridiculous and moreover transparent. Your vacuous claims concerning the USA Constitution are vapid as would be expected of a corporal over there. They impress no one. Worse they are as deliberate and calculated as they are a failure. It is reminiscent of the expired Russian Soviet Union.
Click to expand...

Yes there is a but, it is explicitly pointed out in the oath the constitution potus and the officers, I have no idea what fantasy world you live in but for anyone with a second grade reading comprehension it is clear as day in the oath.

Oh so your answer on the latter is no one needs to listen to russia anything, this just cements your ignorance, your mind was already made up and no amounts of facts or evidence was ever going to deter you from your bubble, you have already decided what you want while people in the know well know the strengths and weaknesses of soviet/russian military and wish to use that knowledge tp augment doctrine to exploit their weaknesses and our strengths, while you get butthurt of anyone who says anything but america is number one and can defeat anyone, while you hide in china and scream a2/ad and 6gw.
 
So now John Bolton says not leaving Syria until "ISIS defeated and Kurds safe".

That is completely contrary to what Trump had said as he was touting immediate pullout. Bolton went on to explain that "this is not an unlimited commitment". Really....as it it ever was John.

Trump is going to get himself Impeached and Removed without a Mueller report ever seeing the light of day because Trump himself is a National Emergency and the biggest threat to our National Security.
 
beerftw said:
Yes there is a but, it is explicitly pointed out in the oath the constitution potus and the officers, I have no idea what fantasy world you live in but for anyone with a second grade reading comprehension it is clear as day in the oath.
Click to expand...

Your corporal's view of the US Constitution denies history, civil and military jurisprudence and doctrine, Constitutional history in particular. It defies and denies the curriculum of the federal and state armed service academies, Rotc colleges and universities, officer candidate school. You haven't any clue of any of this and you reject the presentation of it to you. Which is why you're still a corporal after all these years albeit an honorary one in Russia -- or should be one. In short you haven't any idea how wrong you are which is why you persist and do it with an absolute certainty.
 
Tangmo said:
Your corporal's view of the US Constitution denies history, civil and military jurisprudence and doctrine, Constitutional history in particular. It defies and denies the curriculum of the federal and state armed service academies, Rotc colleges and universities, officer candidate school. You haven't any clue of any of this and you reject the presentation of it to you. Which is why you're still a corporal after all these years albeit an honorary one in Russia -- or should be one. In short you haven't any idea how wrong you are which is why you persist and do it with an absolute certainty.
Click to expand...

It is literally in the oath, read the oath, I swore it twice and am very aware of what it means, there is no magic hidden meaning to it, deny all you want and run around the issue, but the words are clear as day as well as the meaning.


Tehe fact you keep deflecting to russia on this shows you lost this argument like you did all the others, you have no real grounds on the debate and hope to divert it to some other topic, typical tango losing the argument, and resorting to logical fallacies and ad hominems to avoid admitting you lost.
 
beerftw said:
It is literally in the oath, read the oath, I swore it twice and am very aware of what it means, there is no magic hidden meaning to it, deny all you want and run around the issue, but the words are clear as day as well as the meaning.


Tehe fact you keep deflecting to russia on this shows you lost this argument like you did all the others, you have no real grounds on the debate and hope to divert it to some other topic, typical tango losing the argument, and resorting to logical fallacies and ad hominems to avoid admitting you lost.
Click to expand...

You're talking under people's feet here. You're not the only one to take the oath either military or civilian. The military officer oath and the civilian government employment oath are identical. Members of Congress take the identical oath too. The judiciary takes an oath to the Constitution that has additional focus specific to justice. National Guard take the appropriate oath (EP or Commissioned Officer) plus the state constitution oath.

I took the Enlisted Oath on entry to Rotc and the Commissioned Officer Oath on entry to the armed forces (Army). I am educated in the Oath by Rotc just as all officer cadets are educated in the Oath and its history are educated at the federal and state armed forces academies. I took the Oath three times in three different civilian employment positions, to include professional staff in the US House of Representatives. You yourself fly in the face of all this while you are certain you have the words right which you do not have, never mind all the rest of it. Which is why you remain qualified for nothing more than to be a Russian corporal. I am inclined consequently to pass on your time and attention consuming posts.
 
Tangmo said:
You're talking under people's feet here. You're not the only one to take the oath either military or civilian. The military officer oath and the civilian government employment oath are identical. Members of Congress take the identical oath too. The judiciary takes an oath to the Constitution that has additional focus specific to justice. National Guard take the appropriate oath (EP or Commissioned Officer) plus the state constitution oath.

I took the Enlisted Oath on entry to Rotc and the Commissioned Officer Oath on entry to the armed forces (Army). I am educated in the Oath by Rotc just as all officer cadets are educated in the Oath and its history are educated at the federal and state armed forces academies. I took the Oath three times in three different civilian employment positions, to include professional staff in the US House of Representatives. You yourself fly in the face of all this while you are certain you have the words right which you do not have, never mind all the rest of it. Which is why your remain qualified for nothing more than to be a Russian corporal. I am inclined consequently to pass on your time and attention consuming posts.
Click to expand...

If you are educated in the oath then why are you unable to see the other parts past the constitution that mention the potus and officers?
 
Tangmo said:
You are incompetent in the Oath and the Constitution.
Click to expand...

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.


hmmm no I seem to read it just fine, need me to quote the constitution as well since you seem to be reading some fantasy oath and fantasy constitution no one but yourself can read with a chinese decoder ring?
 
beerftw said:
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.


hmmm no I seem to read it just fine, need me to quote the constitution as well since you seem to be reading some fantasy oath and fantasy constitution no one but yourself can read with a chinese decoder ring?
Click to expand...


You are oblivious or you are a denier. Either marks you as dubious or suspect.

I'll not repost my many posts on the topic of the recent time. Reposting is both unnecessary and it accomplishes nothing against a denier. You deny the Oath and the Constitution. Suffice to say, no man is above the law in the USA. No single person is above the Constitution. Putin-Trump Fanboys see it otherwise however regardless of the facts and the history of it. The Oath is to the three branches of the government, their coequal powers, checks and balances and to the American People who live by the Constitution. The Oath is not to any one person or official nor has it ever been such. There is just no way one man can or would be allowed to stand above the Constitution. Neither you nor Putin can mangle the words to get to one man being above the Law of the Land no matter how unrelentingly you try to get there.
 
Tangmo said:
You are oblivious or you are a denier. Either marks you as dubious or suspect.

I'll not repost my many posts on the topic of the recent time. Reposting is both unnecessary and it accomplishes nothing against a denier. You deny the Oath and the Constitution. Suffice to say, no man is above the law in the USA. No single person is above the Constitution. Putin-Trump Fanboys see it otherwise however regardless of the facts and the history of it. The Oath is to the three branches of the government, their coequal powers, checks and balances and to the American People who live by the Constitution. The Oath is not to any one person or official nor has it ever been such. There is just no way one man can or would be allowed to stand above the Constitution. Neither you nor Putin can mangle the words to get to one man being above the Law of the Land no matter how unrelentingly you try to get there.
Click to expand...

I never denied the oath to the constitution, that is an argument you are making independant of what I said. I pointed out the oath swears loyalty to the potus and the officers as well in an order, and that the constitutional part holds no grounds hen there is no constitutional violations, there is nowhere in the constitution to say obey the constitution, potus and officers over me unless I dislike their decisions .

I posted the oath enough times, for you to shift to this as the argument just means you are now fabricating a fake argument since you lost the real one, or you somehow believe trumps decisions have constitutional grounds for generals to disobey.
 
Tangmo said:
Your corporal's view of the US Constitution denies history, civil and military jurisprudence and doctrine, Constitutional history in particular. It defies and denies the curriculum of the federal and state armed service academies, Rotc colleges and universities, officer candidate school. You haven't any clue of any of this and you reject the presentation of it to you. Which is why you're still a corporal after all these years albeit an honorary one in Russia -- or should be one. In short you haven't any idea how wrong you are which is why you persist and do it with an absolute certainty.
Click to expand...

Wow...

All that WRONG in one post...
 
beerftw said:
I never denied the oath to the constitution, that is an argument you are making independant of what I said. I pointed out the oath swears loyalty to the potus and the officers as well in an order, and that the constitutional part holds no grounds hen there is no constitutional violations, there is nowhere in the constitution to say obey the constitution, potus and officers over me unless I dislike their decisions .

I posted the oath enough times, for you to shift to this as the argument just means you are now fabricating a fake argument since you lost the real one, or you somehow believe trumps decisions have constitutional grounds for generals to disobey.
Click to expand...

The final sentence is the basis of the Right Wing's panic and compulsion to deny the Constitution and the history of the Oath required of the armed forces. The history of it originates with Gen. Washington as I've pointed out.

Indeed your corporal's view of the US Constitution denies history, civil and military jurisprudence and doctrine, Constitutional history in particular. It defies and denies the curriculum of the federal and state armed service academies, Rotc colleges and universities, officer candidate school. You haven't any clue of any of this and you reject the presentation of it to you. Which is why you're still an unrelenting corporal after all these years albeit an honorary one in Russia -- or should be one in Russia. In short you haven't any idea how wrong you are which is why you persist relentlessly and do it with an absolute desperation.
 
Tangmo said:
The final sentence is the basis of the Right Wing's panic and compulsion to deny the Constitution and the history of the Oath required of the armed forces. The history of it originates with Gen. Washington as I've pointed out.

Indeed your corporal's view of the US Constitution denies history, civil and military jurisprudence and doctrine, Constitutional history in particular. It defies and denies the curriculum of the federal and state armed service academies, Rotc colleges and universities, officer candidate school. You haven't any clue of any of this and you reject the presentation of it to you. Which is why you're still an unrelenting corporal after all these years albeit an honorary one in Russia -- or should be one in Russia. In short you haven't any idea how wrong you are which is why you persist relentlessly and do it with an absolute desperation.
Click to expand...

Can you point out the constitutional crisis anywhere at any point in time? Also general washingtons oath does not apply today even though it is similar, and even general washingtons oath does not justify insubbordination with the circumstances of trump. Also the general washington oath does not apply unless trump was king george or great britain.

I can even quote every single oath of the us military going back to the continental army if you wish, none of them back you up and you have yet to show any constitutional violations of trump to justify anything, and also ignore the official path has been changed very little since 1789 with the last major change in 1960, last time I checked sldiers do not go into a time machine and swear an oath in 1776 then warp back to today, the ath is the oath not what you wish it to be, just the same as the constitution is the constitution, most of it is the same but has been amended as well by it's own rules, yet only someone illerate of the constitution would argue that amendments in todays time are irrelevant to the original text pre amendment.
 
beerftw said:
Can you point out the constitutional crisis anywhere at any point in time? Also general washingtons oath does not apply today even though it is similar, and even general washingtons oath does not justify insubbordination with the circumstances of trump. Also the general washington oath does not apply unless trump was king george or great britain.

I can even quote every single oath of the us military going back to the continental army if you wish, none of them back you up and you have yet to show any constitutional violations of trump to justify anything, and also ignore the official path has been changed very little since 1789 with the last major change in 1960, last time I checked sldiers do not go into a time machine and swear an oath in 1776 then warp back to today, the ath is the oath not what you wish it to be, just the same as the constitution is the constitution, most of it is the same but has been amended as well by it's own rules, yet only someone illerate of the constitution would argue that amendments in todays time are irrelevant to the original text pre amendment.
Click to expand...



You got a lot of words there that go nowhere and that are a pretty rough ride besides. Your relentless abuse of the word "insubbordination" sic. defines you as a Russian corporal in the service of Putin who is the Great Divider. So let's try this instead because it is an example of going directly to the point of the matter....


Marine Corps Base Quantico -- There is an important difference to understand when reading the Oath of Enlistment compared to the [commissioned officers'] Oath of Office.

Both officers and enlisted service members swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, but in the Oath of Enlistment, service members swear they will “obey the orders of the president of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over [them], according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.”

Officers do not include this in their Oath of Office.

Instead, they swear to support and defend the constitution and “well and faithfully discharge the duties of [their] office.”

Why are the two oaths different and what does it mean that officers do not swear obedience to the president or higher ranking officers? This concept traces back to the intentions of the Founding Fathers who created our governing system with a separation of powers and series of checks and balances between the three branches. This ensures no single branch or person gains too much power and becomes corrupted. By swearing allegiance to a set of ideals and laws, our military is not bound by the orders of a single person, but are dedicated to the defense of the people and their way of life.


The obligation and responsibility to act against unlawful orders is not exclusive to officers. Article 90 of the UCMJ states that service members are only obligated to obey lawful orders. This gives authority to small unit leaders and even riflemen to use their judgment to serve honorably and disobey orders when they do not uphold the moral standards of our service. Not only does this act as a safeguard to corruption and abuse of power, but it also develops a sense of responsibility and leadership at all levels of command.

If this is the case, however, then why is the distinction made between the two oaths when both enlisted and officers are not obligated to follow unlawful orders according to the UCMJ?

Officers, especially at higher ranks, have a unique position of authority and influence within the organization that could be taken advantage of for political gain. Swearing loyalty to the Constitution instead of the president or any other person means that officials cannot manipulate officers in order to gain control over the military and become dictators.

The intent is to ensure our military fights in defense of the people and their way of life instead of being misused for political gain. Article 90 of the UCMJ allows for legal disobedience of unlawful orders for both enlisted and officers. Giving the individual Marine responsibility for judging orders as right or wrong keeps our service members accountable and helps keep our honor clean as a professional warfighting organization.

https://www.quantico.marines.mil/Ne...ce-between-oath-of-office-oath-of-enlistment/


As we see daily however the unrelenting armband right are fiercely determined to assert once and for all their triumph of the will regardless of the laws, the Constitution, the facts. They will press on relentlessly until they realize their purposes and goals against the USA. They don't quit and they will never quit until only they are satisfied. They are the Putin-Trump Fanboys.
 
Tangmo said:
You got a lot of words there that go nowhere and that are a pretty rough ride besides. Your relentless abuse of the word "insubbordination" sic. defines you as a Russian corporal in the service of Putin who is the Great Divider. So let's try this instead because it is an example of going directly to the point of the matter....


Marine Corps Base Quantico -- There is an important difference to understand when reading the Oath of Enlistment compared to the [commissioned officers'] Oath of Office.

Both officers and enlisted service members swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, but in the Oath of Enlistment, service members swear they will “obey the orders of the president of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over [them], according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.”

Officers do not include this in their Oath of Office.

Instead, they swear to support and defend the constitution and “well and faithfully discharge the duties of [their] office.”

Why are the two oaths different and what does it mean that officers do not swear obedience to the president or higher ranking officers? This concept traces back to the intentions of the Founding Fathers who created our governing system with a separation of powers and series of checks and balances between the three branches. This ensures no single branch or person gains too much power and becomes corrupted. By swearing allegiance to a set of ideals and laws, our military is not bound by the orders of a single person, but are dedicated to the defense of the people and their way of life.


The obligation and responsibility to act against unlawful orders is not exclusive to officers. Article 90 of the UCMJ states that service members are only obligated to obey lawful orders. This gives authority to small unit leaders and even riflemen to use their judgment to serve honorably and disobey orders when they do not uphold the moral standards of our service. Not only does this act as a safeguard to corruption and abuse of power, but it also develops a sense of responsibility and leadership at all levels of command.

If this is the case, however, then why is the distinction made between the two oaths when both enlisted and officers are not obligated to follow unlawful orders according to the UCMJ?

Officers, especially at higher ranks, have a unique position of authority and influence within the organization that could be taken advantage of for political gain. Swearing loyalty to the Constitution instead of the president or any other person means that officials cannot manipulate officers in order to gain control over the military and become dictators.

The intent is to ensure our military fights in defense of the people and their way of life instead of being misused for political gain. Article 90 of the UCMJ allows for legal disobedience of unlawful orders for both enlisted and officers. Giving the individual Marine responsibility for judging orders as right or wrong keeps our service members accountable and helps keep our honor clean as a professional warfighting organization.

https://www.quantico.marines.mil/Ne...ce-between-oath-of-office-oath-of-enlistment/


As we see daily however the unrelenting armband right are fiercely determined to assert once and for all their triumph of the will regardless of the laws, the Constitution, the facts. They will press on relentlessly until they realize their purposes and goals against the USA. They don't quit and they will never quit until only they are satisfied. They are the Putin-Trump Fanboys.
Click to expand...

You do know all military swore the oath of enlistment as well except direct commission officers, who are limited to specific fields and not allowed to be in command combat operations.


Unlawful orders are already unlawful no matter the rank or whether enlisted of commissioned, so that is a moot point.


Both oaths already put the constitution at the top of the list, which gives legal and moral justification to defy unlawful orders, however what is lawful and unlawful is already defined, not something chosen because a general is butthurt that the president runs foreign policy and not the generals.
 
beerftw said:
You do know all military swore the oath of enlistment as well except direct commission officers, who are limited to specific fields and not allowed to be in command combat operations.


Unlawful orders are already unlawful no matter the rank or whether enlisted of commissioned, so that is a moot point.


Both oaths already put the constitution at the top of the list, which gives legal and moral justification to defy unlawful orders, however what is lawful and unlawful is already defined, not something chosen because a general is butthurt that the president runs foreign policy and not the generals.
Click to expand...

I went through uni Rotc so you belabor the point of the Enlisted Oath. You are the guy who took only one oath. That is, on entry to Rotc each new cadet takes the Enlisted Oath in the reserve force of the branch. Military academy cadets -- USMA, USNA. USAFA -- are enlisted in the regular forces and subject to the UCMJ; Rotc are not under UCMJ and are bound by their DoD contract instead.

Orders that are unconstitutional, unlawful, illegal, immoral. The matter is left to the professional judgement of the individual Soldier with the higher order decisions made by senior officers and down the chain of command. The one thingy you have reasonably correct is that not every order or command is one of the four, i.e., enlisted personnel must sooner or later obey superior officers, to include obedience of officers by nco. Because everyone in the armed forces is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution. To include the spirit of the Constitution as well as the letter of it.

For instance, Potus calling the free press the "enemy of the people" violates the spirit of the Constitution and it violates the letter of the Constitution, as Admiral (Ret.) William McRaven in particular has pointed out. Further, if Potus arbitrarily declared a state of emergency over a political objective such as a wall, the abuse of power would violate the Constitution. If Potus attacked the judiciary and individual judges performing their legitimate and Constitutional duties in cases, this would violate the spirit and the letter of the Constitution. These examples together with other violations in other matters would become cumulative. At a certain point therefore, Potus orders along these lines would be questioned or the reaction could be a stronger one than a question.
 
Tangmo said:
I went through uni Rotc so you belabor the point of the Enlisted Oath. You are the guy who took only one oath. That is, on entry to Rotc each new cadet takes the Enlisted Oath in the reserve force of the branch. Military academy cadets -- USMA, USNA. USAFA -- are enlisted in the regular forces and subject to the UCMJ; Rotc are not under UCMJ and are bound by their DoD contract instead.

Orders that are unconstitutional, unlawful, illegal, immoral. The matter is left to the professional judgement of the individual Soldier with the higher order decisions made by senior officers and down the chain of command. The one thingy you have reasonably correct is that not every order or command is one of the four, i.e., enlisted personnel must sooner or later obey superior officers, to include obedience of officers by nco. Because everyone in the armed forces is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution. To include the spirit of the Constitution as well as the letter of it.

For instance, Potus calling the free press the "enemy of the people" violates the spirit of the Constitution and it violates the letter of the Constitution, as Admiral (Ret.) William McRaven in particular has pointed out. Further, if Potus arbitrarily declared a state of emergency over a political objective such as a wall, the abuse of power would violate the Constitution. If Potus attacked the judiciary and individual judges performing their legitimate and Constitutional duties in cases, this would violate the spirit and the letter of the Constitution. These examples together with other violations in other matters would become cumulative. At a certain point therefore, Potus orders along these lines would be questioned or the reaction could be a stronger one than a question.
Click to expand...

Unlawful, immoral, illegal and unconstitutional orders hold the same burden for all branches and ranks, plain and simple, however all are bound by their oath, meaning unless one of those orders is unconstitutional or unlawful, there is no grounds to ignore the order, Ie there is zero unconstitutional about trump withdrawing from syria, there is nothing unconstitutional for generals to resign from their command if they deem they can not obey the orders, it would be unconstitutional and against the oath to try and ignore presidents orders or even circumvent them without a constitutional reason.
 
beerftw said:
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.


hmmm no I seem to read it just fine, need me to quote the constitution as well since you seem to be reading some fantasy oath and fantasy constitution no one but yourself can read with a chinese decoder ring?
Click to expand...
Ummm that’s the enlisted oath. For commissioned officers it is
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; 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.

Federal employees take the same oath.

I have taken both oaths around 9, 10 times combined. Please don’t try to tell me I don’t understand them.
 
pinqy said:
Ummm that’s the enlisted oath. For commissioned officers it is
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; 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.

Federal employees take the same oath.

I have taken both oaths around 9, 10 times combined. Please don’t try to tell me I don’t understand them.
Click to expand...

Depends are you arguing the oath is only to the constitution?

Fyi all but dco's also have to swear the enlistment oath which never expires, and dco's are limited to certain fields and can not be in command positions.
 
beerftw said:
Unlawful, immoral, illegal and unconstitutional orders hold the same burden for all branches and ranks, plain and simple, however all are bound by their oath, meaning unless one of those orders is unconstitutional or unlawful, there is no grounds to ignore the order, Ie there is zero unconstitutional about trump withdrawing from syria, there is nothing unconstitutional for generals to resign from their command if they deem they can not obey the orders, it would be unconstitutional and against the oath to try and ignore presidents orders or even circumvent them without a constitutional reason.
Click to expand...

Unconstitutional, unlawful, illegal, immoral. Shooting an unarmed civilian anywhere anytime as Trump wanted unsuccessfully as the rules of engagement at the southern border violates all four.

The spirit or the letter of the Constitution and the law. This means you are advised to consider seriously a need to broaden the scope and range of your thinking and understanding.

Withdrawing say from Syria, Afghanistan, the Black Sea, South Korea, Japan, the South China Sea would cumulatively endanger the US national security. This in the professional judgement of military and naval chiefs and commanders would constitute a violation of the Potus Oath to preserve, protect, defend.

And so on.
 
VanceMack said:
Where there is confusion is understandable. Military pay is a legislative act. It isnt subject to the whims of the military, its leaders, or the CiC. I have the same questions as to how “High 3” mandate was ignored in McChrystals case...and also why...especially considering the fact that he retired as a result of a dishonorable act. Mind you...his act doesnt invalidate his service, but it certainly doesnt warrant special attention.

https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/pdf-files/Military_Comp-2011.pdf
Click to expand...
General McChrystal entered service in 1976, four years prior to “high 3” being enacted. He was entitled under the “final pay” system (50% base pay + 2.5% for every year over 20).

Regardless of your opinion of his service, he retired as an O-10 and is entitled to the benefits of his rank.
 
Tangmo said:
Unconstitutional, unlawful, illegal, immoral. Shooting an unarmed civilian anywhere anytime as Trump wanted unsuccessfully as the rules of engagement at the southern border violates all four.

The spirit or the letter of the Constitution and the law. This means you are advised to consider seriously a need to broaden the scope and range of your thinking and understanding.

Withdrawing say from Syria, Afghanistan, the Black Sea, South Korea, Japan, the South China Sea would cumulatively endanger the US national security. This in the professional judgement of military and naval chiefs and commanders would constitute a violation of the Potus Oath to preserve, protect, defend.

And so on.
Click to expand...

Withdrawing from syria endagers us security how? And where in the constitution does it say the president is commander in chief uneless we feel it may endager security somewhere somehow at some point in time.

On the first sentence you listed an actual unlawful order, an unlawful order covers violations of the constitution, law, or conventions and treaties ratified by congress .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom