flightlesskiwi
06-19-2011, 10:48 PM
somehow, someway, a debate about the Constitution broke out amongst military officers (and I presume some enlisted members) on another public forum. i'm sharing this in hopes gain some insight from those within the liberty movement.
here are some of the delicious quotes made by those who took an oath of duty to the Constitution of the United States of America. (please excuse the language)
(source: hxxp://www.flyingsquadron.com/forums/index.php?/topic/18253-the-constitution-debate/)
this is in response to someone posting the Oath Keepers information:
Yea...kinda sound a little out there, even for the Proud Gun Owner liberatarian military folks...
and:
Yeah, based on what I'm seeing here, not a fan. You can't go picking and choosing willey nilley. I'm not going to follow an order to shoot some fucking kid in the forehead, but you don't have to join an organization to exercise judgment. The distinction between lawful and unlawful orders is already recognized.
I'm well aware of the responsibility to disobey unlawful orders but you'd better have your sh*t straight if you're gonna go down that path and it helps to have a whole bunch of your buddies agree with you while you're at it.
Single acts of defiance, like Lt. Col. Whatshisnuts who refused to deploy because he didn't believe Obama's birth certificate was legit...yea, that worked out real well for him...
Seems like sites like this error on the side of too much "Hell no!" and not enough "thoughtful, rational upholding of a sacred duty" IMHO.
But wait!! a voice of reason in the turmoil?:
Have we become so technically skilled and careerist that we don't give two shits about defending the Constitution, and are more concerned about performing our compartmentalized jobs well? News flash: doing a kick ass job at your assigned combat orders might overlap with, but is completely independent from, defending the Constitution.
Enlisted take an oath to obey officers. Officers take an oath to defend the Constitution. Prior to accepting any order, the Constitution should be first and foremost in your crosscheck.
Please, speak up if you think that the Libyan action, the Federal Reserve, or TSA's recent procedures are Constitutional. Are you just going along because everyone else is, or are you actually fulfilling your oath in any meaningful way? Have you used circular logic to rationalize everything you do as Constitutional because you are in the military and dutifully following orders?
We need to have a serious conversation if the mainstream military officer corps believes the oath or Constitution is obsolete or an afterthought. [#], I'm not singling out you. Most officers seem to have similar beliefs.
to which the "non singled out" replies:
I'll say yes to all three although Libya depends on whether or not you think the War Powers Resolution is constitutional (which no President ever has, from Nixon to Obama). The President takes an oath to the constitution similar to you and I and if he believes a law is unconstitutional, should he not refuse to follow it? The Fed is absolutely constitutional; whether it's effective or necessary is a different debate.
and the same person this:
You are correct that just because the Constitution creates Congress that everything they do is constitutional, but how is the federal reserve not constitutional? The link I provided explicitly cites the sections of the constitution that authorize the Congress, "To coin money, regulate the value thereof..." and the Congress has chosen to delegate this power to a body of experts they have created called the Federal Reserve so they can spend their time fulfilling the many other duties of Congress.
here is a gem:
The economy is not that bad. There is high unemployment but certainly nothing close to the level required to support this kind of talk about civil unrest. People would first have to lose all hope in their economic and political voice. Those economically disheartened who would be most likely to cause civil unrest are the very same people who elected the current administration into office. We are not facing a loss of faith in the political system.
This kind of talk is dangerous and absurd. It only serves to preempt positive focus for a call to action without fear and accelerates the outcome no one wants.
well, good readers, this "debate" went on for a while. the interesting thing: an administrator locked it down. granted, it did get a bit personal, the one person who was defending his argument that officers should deny illegal orders by understanding and using the Constitution got personally attacked and began attacking back. but, remember, some of these people actually think they are fighting to defend our freedoms.
there was also a Libya thread that started getting "muddied" with Constitution talk (i admit that i started the muddying).
I'll just post this for giggles from the Libya thread :
There was a great video of David Gregory interviewing Senators Lindsay Graham and Dick Durbin and it highlighted pretty much the 3 different views available on this issue. View #1 is that what the President is doing is illegal and operations in Libya was wrong in the first place; this view is held by many Congressional Republicans, quite a few Congressional Democrats, and it seems quite a few people here. View #2, espoused by Senator Durbin, is that what the President is doing is illegal but that operations in Libya were the right call. Durbin wants to reign the President back into the framework of the WPA but doesn't want to cut off funding or otherwise hurt the mission that's ongoing. View #3, espoused by Senator Graham and the President, is that the WPA itself is unconstitutional and that the operations in Libya were a good call. They say the President is well within his rights to pursue operations there in the manner he has chosen and that those operations should continue uninfringed by Congressional action.
There is also a View #4 that the WPA is unconstitutional (or at least parts of it are) but that operations in Libya are a good idea, just that the President should have done a better job of getting Congressional approval before the deadline passed to avoid this whole political mess. This is probably closet to my view.
Now, if you're willing to bet your career and your moral standing on any one of those 4 views being absolutely correct and provable in a court of law, GL to (hxxp://www.flyingsquadron.com/forums/index.php?/topic/17982-the-libya-situation/page__st__360)
it does seem that there are a few who understand their oath-- which makes me (dimly) hopeful.
if you check out the threads, you'll notice a few jumping in and out of the debate, but by looking at the negative rep on the posts to those with pro-constitution language, i came to the conclusion that the constitution is winning the debate, just not hearts and minds.
thoughts?
here are some of the delicious quotes made by those who took an oath of duty to the Constitution of the United States of America. (please excuse the language)
(source: hxxp://www.flyingsquadron.com/forums/index.php?/topic/18253-the-constitution-debate/)
this is in response to someone posting the Oath Keepers information:
Yea...kinda sound a little out there, even for the Proud Gun Owner liberatarian military folks...
and:
Yeah, based on what I'm seeing here, not a fan. You can't go picking and choosing willey nilley. I'm not going to follow an order to shoot some fucking kid in the forehead, but you don't have to join an organization to exercise judgment. The distinction between lawful and unlawful orders is already recognized.
I'm well aware of the responsibility to disobey unlawful orders but you'd better have your sh*t straight if you're gonna go down that path and it helps to have a whole bunch of your buddies agree with you while you're at it.
Single acts of defiance, like Lt. Col. Whatshisnuts who refused to deploy because he didn't believe Obama's birth certificate was legit...yea, that worked out real well for him...
Seems like sites like this error on the side of too much "Hell no!" and not enough "thoughtful, rational upholding of a sacred duty" IMHO.
But wait!! a voice of reason in the turmoil?:
Have we become so technically skilled and careerist that we don't give two shits about defending the Constitution, and are more concerned about performing our compartmentalized jobs well? News flash: doing a kick ass job at your assigned combat orders might overlap with, but is completely independent from, defending the Constitution.
Enlisted take an oath to obey officers. Officers take an oath to defend the Constitution. Prior to accepting any order, the Constitution should be first and foremost in your crosscheck.
Please, speak up if you think that the Libyan action, the Federal Reserve, or TSA's recent procedures are Constitutional. Are you just going along because everyone else is, or are you actually fulfilling your oath in any meaningful way? Have you used circular logic to rationalize everything you do as Constitutional because you are in the military and dutifully following orders?
We need to have a serious conversation if the mainstream military officer corps believes the oath or Constitution is obsolete or an afterthought. [#], I'm not singling out you. Most officers seem to have similar beliefs.
to which the "non singled out" replies:
I'll say yes to all three although Libya depends on whether or not you think the War Powers Resolution is constitutional (which no President ever has, from Nixon to Obama). The President takes an oath to the constitution similar to you and I and if he believes a law is unconstitutional, should he not refuse to follow it? The Fed is absolutely constitutional; whether it's effective or necessary is a different debate.
and the same person this:
You are correct that just because the Constitution creates Congress that everything they do is constitutional, but how is the federal reserve not constitutional? The link I provided explicitly cites the sections of the constitution that authorize the Congress, "To coin money, regulate the value thereof..." and the Congress has chosen to delegate this power to a body of experts they have created called the Federal Reserve so they can spend their time fulfilling the many other duties of Congress.
here is a gem:
The economy is not that bad. There is high unemployment but certainly nothing close to the level required to support this kind of talk about civil unrest. People would first have to lose all hope in their economic and political voice. Those economically disheartened who would be most likely to cause civil unrest are the very same people who elected the current administration into office. We are not facing a loss of faith in the political system.
This kind of talk is dangerous and absurd. It only serves to preempt positive focus for a call to action without fear and accelerates the outcome no one wants.
well, good readers, this "debate" went on for a while. the interesting thing: an administrator locked it down. granted, it did get a bit personal, the one person who was defending his argument that officers should deny illegal orders by understanding and using the Constitution got personally attacked and began attacking back. but, remember, some of these people actually think they are fighting to defend our freedoms.
there was also a Libya thread that started getting "muddied" with Constitution talk (i admit that i started the muddying).
I'll just post this for giggles from the Libya thread :
There was a great video of David Gregory interviewing Senators Lindsay Graham and Dick Durbin and it highlighted pretty much the 3 different views available on this issue. View #1 is that what the President is doing is illegal and operations in Libya was wrong in the first place; this view is held by many Congressional Republicans, quite a few Congressional Democrats, and it seems quite a few people here. View #2, espoused by Senator Durbin, is that what the President is doing is illegal but that operations in Libya were the right call. Durbin wants to reign the President back into the framework of the WPA but doesn't want to cut off funding or otherwise hurt the mission that's ongoing. View #3, espoused by Senator Graham and the President, is that the WPA itself is unconstitutional and that the operations in Libya were a good call. They say the President is well within his rights to pursue operations there in the manner he has chosen and that those operations should continue uninfringed by Congressional action.
There is also a View #4 that the WPA is unconstitutional (or at least parts of it are) but that operations in Libya are a good idea, just that the President should have done a better job of getting Congressional approval before the deadline passed to avoid this whole political mess. This is probably closet to my view.
Now, if you're willing to bet your career and your moral standing on any one of those 4 views being absolutely correct and provable in a court of law, GL to (hxxp://www.flyingsquadron.com/forums/index.php?/topic/17982-the-libya-situation/page__st__360)
it does seem that there are a few who understand their oath-- which makes me (dimly) hopeful.
if you check out the threads, you'll notice a few jumping in and out of the debate, but by looking at the negative rep on the posts to those with pro-constitution language, i came to the conclusion that the constitution is winning the debate, just not hearts and minds.
thoughts?