To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.

I remember when I took that oath. I was young and really did not understand the ramifications of it at the time.

Of course it means exactly what it indicates.

I predict that if this oath can be changed, it will be. To what kind I do not know. However, I'll bet if I'm right it will tie the hands of the military from defending the nation unless directed from either Congress or the President. Tie the hands to keep the military from fulfilling the role it was Constitutionally formed to do.

No foreign country has ever been able to subjugate the populace from oppression of their freedoms without the military. So the military is either in on a coup or has their hands tied Constitutionally.

I hope and pray I'm wrong!

The threat to America's freedom as always been from within.

True:

Adams, John An Essay on Man's Lust for Power
August 29, 1763
Topic: Democracy

[D]emocracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few.

quote:

Originally posted by dragonflyer04:
The threat to America's freedom as always been from within.

I've been saying this long before Timothy McVeigh blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

One of my father's classmates at seminary was a minister killed by the Ku Klux Klan in the Freedom Rides. Standing by his closed casket before the funeral, I learned where some of the most dangerous enemies of the United States came from - from within.

The threat to our nation is from within - at either extreme end of the Left-Right spectrum.

You will not get any disagreement from me there.

PS it did not go through the first time.

Army captain’s lawyer Orly Taitz summons Obama, Gates
By ALAN RIQUELMY
Summonses have been issued in the case of an Army captain seeking to stop her deployment by questioning the legitimacy of Barack Obama’s presidency, court records show. The summonses, issued Wednesday, are for defendants in the civil complaint of Capt. Connie Rhodes, who claims the president is “an illegal usurper” and “an unlawful pretender” and that she cannot lawfully act under his authority. Defendants include Obama, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Thomas MacDonald, Fort Benning garrison commander.
The complaint, filed Friday in the Columbus division of U.S. District Court, is similar to the July 8 suit filed by Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook, who sought conscientious objector status and a temporary injunction. California attorney Orly Taitz, a national figure in the “birther” movement, represents both.
According to the summonses, the defendants have 20 days to answer the complaint once received; they have two months if they are an officer or employee of the federal government.
Rhodes seeks to stop Gates, MacDonald and others from giving her and others orders until Obama’s citizenship status is established, her complaint states. She also seeks conscientious objector status based on her doubts of Obama’s qualifications. A hearing on the complaint hasn’t been scheduled.

It's more likely the good Captain decided she wanted to renege or her oath to protect and defend the Constitution and should stand for court martial for desertion should she not deploy.

Yeah you're right but first we need to clear up this Obama/Soetoro mess. I wouldn't want to serve under an illegal-alien either.

quote:

Originally posted by GunnyCracker:
Yeah you're right but first we need to clear up this Obama/Soetoro mess. I wouldn't want to serve under an illegal-alien either.

gunny, there is a reason this thread is called conspiracy theory. That should clear up your confusion as well as the mess.

quote:

Originally posted by GunnyCracker:
Yeah you're right but first we need to clear up this Obama/Soetoro mess. I wouldn't want to serve under an illegal-alien either.

Gunny has a point no matter how ridiculous this may sound.

quote:

Originally posted by 14713742:

quote:

Originally posted by GunnyCracker:
Yeah you're right but first we need to clear up this Obama/Soetoro mess. I wouldn't want to serve under an illegal-alien either.

Gunny has a point no matter how ridiculous this may sound.

Now to my original purpose of this post along which may confirm or eliminate Gunny's thoughts on whether these individuals must serve or not serve:

The President is of course the CINC and the military falls under the President's command. However, ultimatley the military is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Open Question: Does this mean the military must follow an/or order(s)in conflict with the U.S. Constitution, as it pertains to the U.S. population if ordered by the President? So which has the ultimate authority over the militaty? The U.S. Constitution or the President of the United States?

quote:

Originally posted by 14713742:

quote:

Originally posted by 14713742:

quote:

Originally posted by GunnyCracker:
I wouldn't want to serve under an illegal-alien either.

Gunny has a point no matter how ridiculous this may sound.

Now to my original purpose of this post along which may confirm or eliminate Gunny's thoughts on whether these individuals must serve or not serve:

The President is of course the CINC and the military falls under the President's command. However, ultimately the military is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Open Question: Does this mean the military must follow an/or order(s)in conflict with the U.S. Constitution, as it pertains to the U.S. population if ordered by the President? So which has the ultimate authority over the militaty? The U.S. Constitution or the President of the United States?

Article 2 Section 2 U.S. Constitution:

quote:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.

So a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution would indicate that the President has been given the "ultimate authority" over the military by the Constitution.

Article 90 of the UCMJ states:

quote:

Any person subject to this chapter who willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, and if the offense is committed at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.

So it fails down to the term "lawful order". Ultimately, it's not whether or not the individual military member thinks the order is illegal or unlawful, it's whether military superiors (and the courts) think the order was illegal or unlawful.

The Manual of Court-Martial states:

quote:

An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.

An order to perform a military duty (no matter how dangerous) is lawful, as long as it doesn't involve commission of a crime.

So the argument that, since an individual military member believes that President Obama is not Constitutionaly qualified to have been elected to the office of President and is therefore NOT Commander-In-Chief, orders such as a deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan do not have to be followed/obeyed is a bogus argument. As long as the individual military member is not being ordered to commit a crime (a robbery, a murder, etc.), the orders are lawful and must be obeyed, at the risk of court-martial - even if the individual military member doesn't believe that the superior is legally or Constitutionally qualified to be his superior.

Finally, FYI, Articles 88 & 134 of the UCMJ could, if he/she could be identified as an active duty military member and charged by a superior in his/her chain of command, lead to a poster on Military dot com who posts

quote:

...we have a Man-without-a- country fraudulently sitting in the oval office.

or

quote:

I wouldn't want to serve under an illegal-alien

being court-martialed and thrown into a cell at Leavenworth.

If I were still on Active duty and not retired, and I found out that one of the soldiers under my command had posted comments like the ones I quoted on an Internet Forum, I would recommend them for court-martial under Article 134 for "disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces".

quote:

Originally posted by Fightdirector:

quote:

Originally posted by 14713742:

quote:

Originally posted by 14713742:

quote:

Originally posted by GunnyCracker:
I wouldn't want to serve under an illegal-alien either.

Gunny has a point no matter how ridiculous this may sound.

Now to my original purpose of this post along which may confirm or eliminate Gunny's thoughts on whether these individuals must serve or not serve:

The President is of course the CINC and the military falls under the President's command. However, ultimately the military is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Open Question: Does this mean the military must follow an/or order(s)in conflict with the U.S. Constitution, as it pertains to the U.S. population if ordered by the President? So which has the ultimate authority over the militaty? The U.S. Constitution or the President of the United States?

Article 2 Section 2 U.S. Constitution:

quote:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.

So a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution would indicate that the President has been given the "ultimate authority" over the military by the Constitution.

Article 90 of the UCMJ states:

quote:

Any person subject to this chapter who willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, and if the offense is committed at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.

So it fails down to the term "lawful order". Ultimately, it's not whether or not the individual military member thinks the order is illegal or unlawful, it's whether military superiors (and the courts) think the order was illegal or unlawful.

The Manual of Court-Martial states:

quote:

An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.

An order to perform a military duty (no matter how dangerous) is lawful, as long as it doesn't involve commission of a crime.

So the argument that, since an individual military member believes that President Obama is not Constitutionaly qualified to have been elected to the office of President and is therefore NOT Commander-In-Chief, orders such as a deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan do not have to be followed/obeyed is a bogus argument. As long as the individual military member is not being ordered to commit a crime (a robbery, a murder, etc.), the orders are lawful and must be obeyed, at the risk of court-martial - even if the individual military member doesn't believe that the superior is legally or Constitutionally qualified to be his superior.

Finally, FYI, Articles 88 & 134 of the UCMJ could, if he/she could be identified as an active duty military member and charged by a superior in his/her chain of command, lead to a poster on Military dot com who posts

quote:

...we have a Man-without-a- country fraudulently sitting in the oval office.

or

quote:

I wouldn't want to serve under an illegal-alien

being court-martialed and thrown into a cell at Leavenworth.

If I were still on Active duty and not retired, and I found out that one of the soldiers under my command had posted comments like the ones I quoted on an Internet Forum, I would recommend them for court-martial under Article 134 for "disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces".

Interesting explanation, the key is lawful. I further add that "...obey the officers appointed over me." The two officers in question has orders to deploy. IMO The two military offciers do not have a leg to "stand on." Yes, an active duty military member would be wise not to speak of such things and leave as such alone and to the powers that make such high level decisions unless crystal clear to them it is unlawful. I would never speak of such things if I were still on active duty; not my function to do so.

If the Capt. persists in this lunacy, she can kiss any hoped for career in the Army good bye.

And maybe a cell hello.

Just an aside. If I was taking on the DOJ, DOD and the White House, with their top lawyers who went to top 50 laws schools and graduated top 20% in their class, I would want an attorney of equal caliber. Not some 10th rate, dentist turned lawyer who has never argued a successful case in Federal Court. This person put her career in the hands of joker who calls herself an attorney. California is the only state with these non ABA accredited law schools. Although she says she is admitted to the US Supreme Court Bar, that does not mean she has practiced before the court. She just applied and they said yep, your an attorney in good standing in a state of the US.

I have seen good attorneys and great attorneys, and those who can barely keep the lights on. Orley should stick to dentistry. She is not admitted to the state of George and is asking to be allowed to handle this case without co-counsel.

This suit has been filed and dismissed before in Texas. And I was reading the suit. She forgets that the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court administered the oath of office after his election was certified by the US Congress, and a vote of the electors of several states - all 50 to be exact.

I suggest the judge call the Republican governor of Hawaii and confirm himself that their is not case. Then he should dismiss the case and sanction Orley to the tune of $100,000 US.

Also, I believe that Executive Privilege applies to this case, and so the court is without authority to summon the President and SecDef.

In the United States government, executive privilege is the power claimed by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch to resist certain subpoenas and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government. The concept of executive privilege is not mentioned explicitly in the United States Constitution, but the Supreme Court of the United States ruled it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.[

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Dave_M,

DaveM-I realize you're a bigshot moderator but do you also get a check(cash?) from M0VE0n.org or ACORN? Maybe directly from Barry Soetoro?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: OldArmyLove,

I am a veteran like you and the insult by insinuation is disgusting. Like all moderators here, I am a volunteer. No Pay for our work here. As I have said before, on this board I am a member, not a moderator. I just get to talk. As I have only posted facts, except for the one suggestion, to insult me is reckless.

I am a disabled vet. We own a family business that has been around for over 20 years. The last time I received a pay check from the US government was in the US Navy. I worked for the State of Ohio for a short time after, but have been in the business sector ever since. I am not in the employ of any non-proft. I serve on one board of a group that allows no political activty as part of its operation. It is a medical group.

I have served on the board of a number of business and technology organizations on the local level, and on National committees of charities in the past.

quote:

If I were still on Active duty and not retired, and I found out that one of the soldiers under my command had posted comments like the ones I quoted on an Internet Forum, I would recommend them for court-martial under Article 134 for "disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces".

I guess it's a good thing that I'm a Reservist.

All of us, including the President have taken the same oaths...if he is a pretender he must suffer the conseqrences of his actions just like the rest of us...and why not???

Nowhere in the Army Officer's oath of office does it say that they must obey all orders of the CIC.

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.

quote:

Originally posted by Marine5711:
Nowhere in the Army Officer's oath of office does it say that they must obey all orders of the CIC.

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.

BUT! If they refuse a lawful order from said CinC, regardless of how they feel about said CinC, I guarantee somebody's going to have their butt handed to them!

Of course, it's unlikely that anyone under Flag rank or outside of the Marines on White House or Marine One duty will ever receive direct orders from any CinC!

That said, he's still at the top of the Chain of Command for ALL Military personnel.

[/b]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: NEMESIS1960,

quote:

BUT! If they refuse a lawful order from said CinC, regardless of how they feel about said CinC, I guarantee somebody's going to have their butt handed to them!

Does this mean that all the troops in Iraq can just jump on a plane and come on home? Since the libs are calling the war in Iraq (and Afg?) an illegal war? (tongue in cheek here guys)

quote:

Originally posted by KJ1110:

quote:

Originally posted by Marine5711:
Nowhere in the Army Officer's oath of office does it say that they must obey all orders of the CIC.

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.

BUT! If they refuse a lawful order from said CinC, regardless of how they feel about said CinC, I guarantee somebody's going to have their butt handed to them!

Of course, it's unlikely that anyone under Flag rank or outside of the Marines on White House or Marine One duty will ever receive direct orders from any CinC!

That said, he's still at the top of the Chain of Command for ALL Military personnel.

If the Service Chiefs receive an order from the CINC. I don't think it's followed without further information. From the standpoint of (this little foray into fantasy land) just carry it out no matter what it is. The Constitution takes precedent.

Right, if the CNC give an order to kill the members of the leadership of the other party, I do not expect that the Chief of Staff of the Army will carry out that order. On a practical note, budget issues (done by Congress) and operation restrictions prevent any ridiculous order from being implemented. You could not get out of Iraq in 2 weeks. You could not move 50,000 troops to Afghanistan in a week.

So orders can be given, but financially and operationally they must be feasible. And Congress through the budget gives indirect orders to all departments.

quote:

Originally posted by 14713742:

quote:

Originally posted by KJ1110:

quote:

Originally posted by Marine5711:
Nowhere in the Army Officer's oath of office does it say that they must obey all orders of the CIC.

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.

BUT! If they refuse a lawful order from said CinC, regardless of how they feel about said CinC, I guarantee somebody's going to have their butt handed to them!

Of course, it's unlikely that anyone under Flag rank or outside of the Marines on White House or Marine One duty will ever receive direct orders from any CinC!

That said, he's still at the top of the Chain of Command for ALL Military personnel.

If the Service Chiefs receive an order from the CINC. I don't think it's followed without further information. From the standpoint of (this little foray into fantasy land) just carry it out no matter what it is. The Constitution takes precedent.

Hence my use of the word LAWFUL!

quote:

Originally posted by KJ1110:

quote:

Originally posted by 14713742:

quote:

Originally posted by KJ1110:

quote:

Originally posted by Marine5711:
Nowhere in the Army Officer's oath of office does it say that they must obey all orders of the CIC.

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.

BUT! If they refuse a lawful order from said CinC, regardless of how they feel about said CinC, I guarantee somebody's going to have their butt handed to them!

Of course, it's unlikely that anyone under Flag rank or outside of the Marines on White House or Marine One duty will ever receive direct orders from any CinC!

That said, he's still at the top of the Chain of Command for ALL Military personnel.

If the Service Chiefs receive an order from the CINC. I don't think it's followed without further information. From the standpoint of (this little foray into fantasy land) just carry it out no matter what it is. The Constitution takes precedent.

Hence my use of the word LAWFUL!

Just needed to drill down a bit more. Sometimes an example goes a long way.

So, Gentlemen, comming from a pretty defensless American female, are you telling me that you will not protect us? That the illegal laws and encroachments the Gov is doing and passing that we are 'on our own.' That you will not help because we are supposed to go to our Representatives and the courts? We've done that. They arent listening. Now what? Visit the mental malitia forum and others like it, go on youtube to see the 200 millionish people marching on Washington. Please, hear us. We the people are shouting to you, begging you, our defenders, to defend us. Please. You are our last and only defense.

We swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, as you did. That means that all laws passed legally by our legislature, the US Congress and the legislatures of States and subdivisions. We will follow the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the Unites States and those Courts that are lawfully constituted. What you propose is insurrection, and that is unlawful.

You might not like the laws, that does not give anyone the right to refuse to follow the law without penalty. You can challenge the law in court, you can petition your government or you can attempt to elect a different set of representative, all within the law and Constitution.

And there has never been a march on Washington of 200 million people. The largest march on Washington was estimated to draw a crowd of between 800,000 to 1,100,000 in defense of a woman’s right to choose in 2004. The organizers of the tea party estimated 1 million, but the estimates I find are 60 to 70,000 marchers. I found another estimate by a sponsor for 450,000.

200 Million was a typo, I meant 2 million and that is based on my research. I didnt rely much on other peoples counts, I watched the videos and saw the pictures for myself.

As far as 'insurection,' I would thank you to not put words in my mouth. I am asking, what do we 'Civilians' do when we feel we are powerless. When we dont get to choose the candidates presented to us for us to choose between. When we attempt to voice our opinion on laws being presented and find deaf ears. And when we attempt to go to court and are shown the door and called frivilous? As you chose to respond, Sir, I will ask you directly, who do we turn to now?