18 November 2012

Protect and Defend the Constitution

From all enemies, foreign and domestic.

The Constitution is a list proscribed list of things the .gov must do, and how it must go about business.  The Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, is a list of what some call "negative liberties" or things that the government cannot do.  The term "negative liberties" is really a bad term, as the Bill of Rights just codifies natural rights, things you have simply by being your own person.

But how does that "protect and defend the Constitution" play into the Oath of Enlistment or Oath of Office?

Do we task the .mil with determining the Constitutionality of laws?  No, that would be the judicial branch of government.

Do we task the .mil with writing laws and enforcing them?  No, that would be the Legislative branch of government?

The .mil falls under the "Executive" branch, and the role of the Executive is really very narrow when you look at it from a Constitutional perspective.  Instead of a "Priest King" responsible for the economy and leading the "free world" you have a Head of State responsible for defense and representing the US internationally (usually through the State Department).

So what does it really mean to "Protect and Defend" the Constitution?  Does that give the .mil a right to round up secessionists?  The Constitution denies any State the privilege of secession, and one could make the argument that the 10th Amendment makes that denial apply to the citizenry as well.

For an oath to have meaning, it must actually mean something.  This nebulous idea of "defending the Constitution" is a whole lot different than "fighting Tyranny."  As we have seen with Lincoln, FDR, GWBush and Obama, tyranny can be deemed Constitutional.  From rounding up Americans and putting them in concentration camps, confiscating privately owned gold, forcing travelers to pose nude for bureaucrats with no power to arrest, to setting up domestic roadblocks and interfering with the Supreme Court upheld right to freely travel....all Constitutional acts according to the "for the general welfare" language, become Unconstitutional?

I think people do not understand exactly how much weasel wording the Founding Fathers put into the Constitution that allows a veneer of "rule of law" on a Congress unconstrained by conscience.  Because that is the crux of the Constitution, the most powerful branch of .gov is the Legislature, and the power to change the Constitution, the power of the purse strings, all lies with the Legislature.  I can only assume that the Founding Fathers assumed that the Legislature would always be composed of the best of us, the most educated, the most erudite and eloquent, the most insightful and thoughtful.

So what does the oath to protect and defend the Constitution really mean?  It obviously means different things to different people who have raised their right hand and given their solemn affirmation.  But at this point the oath is functionally meaningless, as the encroaching tyranny still wears the mantle of "Constitutionality."  I guess if you are a Judge, required to pass judgement on what passes muster and what doesn't, that oath means much more.  For LT Beltbuckle or PVT Tentpeg, the oath has no real bearing on operations.

24 comments:

Historian said...

with respect, AM, the US Constitution is entirely silent on the subject of secession, unlike the Articles of Confederation before it. Secession is entirely Constitutional, as the lack of enumeration means that the right to secede is guaranteed by the 10th Amendment, which reads- "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This is why President Johnson was advised not to prosecute Jefferson Davis and other CSA officers for treason, as the existence of the CSA was entirely lawful.

Anonymous said...

This is a burning question, even from the days I was in- late 60's. In barracks discussion, many in my group admitted to not raising their hand and taking the oath- it was given en-mass during a formation, so 'knowing' who did what was fairly nebulous. That day and age, there was tremendous animosity toward the government involvment in 'Nam, of course. Even many of us who were there wondered 'why? what are we gaining from this?' So I don't spend much time wondering how many today will 'honor' and oath they take to anything.
Another incident- a group of hippies was going to protest our base, carrying signs and, well, being anti-war hippies. Our commander gave orders that any long hair who crossed the gate was to be shot. Long story short: there was a mild revolt among us guards and we laid our weapons down, told the commander he could start by shooting us. We were absolutely not going to fire our weapons at American civilians.
Luckily, the order was rescinded and none of us was courts-martialed for insubordination or refusing to follow orders.
So, to what are we pledging our honor? Much as I revere the Constitution as the law of the land and love its high ideals, there are times when I wish it wasn't so lofty and constraining. Again, perhaps it's lucky for me it is so lofty and constraining.

Badger said...

Would have to agree with Historian, as the Constitution stands mute on the subject. The Constitution being a compromise to achieve ratification, the subject was of sufficient concern for some states to include the mechanism (for withdrawal from the union) in their state constitutions.

Despots (actual or aspiring) take the approach "that which is not permitted (by us enlightened permittors) is prohibited - you can't do it unless we specifically say you can."

I happen to take the opposite approach: That which is not expressly denied is permitted.

Getting back to your core question, the oath question applies to rank & file .mil & .gov civilian workers as well (not executive appointees), right down to "foreign & domestic." Wonder how that tape plays to the end?

Anonymous said...

AM,

There you go, peeing on people's parades.

Of course a state can secede. They'd just have to get Congress to dismiss them same as the way they got admitted. As no one's ever tried that approach, it remains purely a theoretical process.

Then again, a study of psychoceramics informs one that the secessionist crowd at best polls under 20%. For comparison, there's less more support for gay marriage in Texas (25%) than there is for seceding (18%).

Getting back to oaths and who's not keeping them, I can usually tell who has never spent 5 minutes in a banana republic or 3rd world sh*thole buy the depth of their longing for our military to behave like one from such paradises.

When the military doesn't march up to the White House and hold a drumhead court martial of the boob de jure, they see it as a bug in the program; most thoughtful people see that as a feature. Because expecting another Cincinnatus to crop up when we need him is a thing string to repel on.

Personally, I hope the military isn't deployed against its own citizenry. The times it has been haven't exactly covered it with glory (the Bonus Army, Kent State). In 1861, much of the officer corps resigned and returned to the South.
Sending Lee to Harper's Ferry, and the airborne to Little Rock for desegregation remain the only mildly positive outcomes.

But if you take away the ability to rail at the military for not doing what they're not supposed to do, you force people to confront the fact that the tyranny they bitch about is there because they've watched the tyrants till the soil, plant the seeds, water and prop up the tyranny while those same people have stood around and done nothing. It rubs their noses in their own complicity, acquiesence, and impotence.

And nothing good ever comes of that.

What we need is a version of Viagra that works on moral courage. One of my favorite movie lines is in "Captain Blood." Errol Flynn, planning his escape from enslavement, tells his accomplice to find a stout short piece of timber. The accomplice wonders why.

Flynn's character replies "Lash it to your spine, it needs stiffening."

If only it were so simple.

Best Regards,
-Aesop

AM said...

Historian, Badger,

See Texas v. White.

If the Supreme Court (set up by the Constitution to hold "judicial power") rules Secession Unconstitutional, then to make it legal the Legislature would have to change the Constitution.

So, if you say that Secession is legal because the Constitution doesn't say anything about it, but the USSC says it is illegal, then unless you can throw out a few centuries of case law (which the Constitution is also silent on) then by all means drive on.

Do you see my point? What are you defending? The Constitution? Or all the case law that has been deemed "Constitutional" through the centuries? Can you have the Constitution without the case law that rides it? How could you throw out case law and then accept the amendments beyond the Bill of Rights?

Obamacare has been deemed "Constitutional" and is now the law of the land. If a state went into rebellion/secession over Obamacare, then there would be no conflict with the Oath of Enlistment or Office for someone in the .mil to engage "rebels."

Obviously the Constitution is not a substitute for moral behavior. Forcing rebels to disarm (confiscating guns from US Citizens) becomes a completely Constitutional act.

If your oath puts defense of the Constitution above natural rights, then you can with good conscience obey the lawful orders of a Tyrant to oppose the moral yet unlawful actions of others.

Don said...

Because the federal courts have ruled contrary to the text of the Constitution, and to the stated intent of the Founders in the past doesn't mean that case law is correct. The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, and the other writings of the Founders, as well as the text clearly state their intent. The courts, especially in the last century or so, have let political factors influence their decisions. As witness, the differing opinions of legal scholars depending on their position on the political spectrum.

Our Constitution is indeed a living document. But, not in the way some people mean. Every, and I mean every, situation is addressed in that document. The federal government is required to abide by the Articles which clearly state each branch's responsibilities. By virtue of the 9th and 10th Amendments, they are forbidden to do anything else. Abortion, gay marriage, PPACA, et cetera ad nauseum, are un-constitutional. In short, if the Constitution doesn't say it's required of the federal government, it is forbidden. No matter what the fed.gov thinks. Texas v. White, and many other decisions be damned.

Anonymous said...

That view is at least internally consistent.

A small note of pragmatism is that it took twenty years of the most arbitrary tyrannies - orders of magnitude beyond anything we've seen in the last 80 years - just to get something like 30% of a vastly smaller population to rebel, at far more relatively even odds, against a far more distant and appallingly weaker opponent than what you'd face say, tomorrow or next week.

So while it may be heartwarming to wish to throw out everything after 1791, there may be a few tiny obstacles to gaining support for disenfranchising 18-21 yr. olds and all women, counting black people as 2/5ths of a person, and undoing all the additions after the original cast left the show.

The alternative you're forced into is thus cherry-picking what you'd keep and what you'd throw away, which is exactly the sin you decry in the opposition.

Now you're down to an appeal to naked force, whence sprung the epithet "sic semper tyrannis", and the odds of prevailing in that contest run against precisely those troops who didn't share your view of Constitutional law in the first place.

As a bonus prize, recognize that the socialist mainstream *wants* to drive you to tear it down, the quicker to burn everything you want to the ground and substitute it at long last with their utopian visions of a classless, antireligious, and utterly amoral workers' paradise. Storming the Bastille just gets you to Napoleon that much faster.

It's thus a pretty unappealing pickle to be in.

Regards,
-Aesop

Old Top said...

The Founders intended the Congress to consist of those men, taxpayers, property owners, well established and educated, on a temporary basis.

In those days, that meant white men of independent means. The idea was that indigents and county charity cases had no say, ignorant and rude had no say, women had no direct say. And soldiers had no say.

As that society was well schooled in the classics, knew a republic from a democracy and was morally constrained by Christian principle
in theory at least, it should have worked.

Re: USSC The Supremes have been wrong on numerous occasions and have reversed themselves more than once.

What was 'Constitutional' in 1852
is no longer so, in 1952.

I think the oath means that we defend the idea of constitutional
government, and individual liberty

It should be noted that the Coms and Nazis did everything legally, under their constitutions. A piece of paper is no actual guarantee of anyone's liberty, unless guided by higher ideals and guarded by strong men armed, who have a grasp of the concept.

Anonymous said...

Let's don't revise history on the fly.

It should be noted the the Comms did nothing legally, staged a revolution, and had no Constitution until long after they consolidated power and eliminated their enemies.

The Nazis did nothing but form a government after placing 3rd, and then brazenly depose their coalition partners and undermine everything in the government, none of it either legal nor permissible, with the mere possession of power as their sole authority to eliminate their enemies. Then they rewrote the laws.

Perceptive folks may note a patern.

-Aesop

AM said...

"I think the oath means that we defend the idea of constitutional
government, and individual liberty"

Defending the idea of a constitutional government and individual liberty is NOT part of the Oath of Enlistment nor Oath of Office.

Defending the Constitution, is.

See my point? The oath is functionally meaningless when it comes to application. It is illegal to confiscate civilian weapons, unless the president declares an area "in rebellion" then it passes the Constitutional sniff test just fine.

You can argue that Congress has abused the "General Welfare" and "Interstate Commerce" clauses until they beg for mercy (and you would be right) but all those laws are still "Constitutional" and to openly defy them is rebellion, an act which removes "Constitutional Protections" from rebels.

In the end, you have a military that can keep their oaths, and still crush a moral rebellion.

Roger U said...

The Constitution was ratified by the several sovereign States, voluntarily. Secession is the revocation of that. Its legal, but will never be allowed, the fed can't afford to lose the tax revenue.

AM said "How could you throw out case law and then accept the amendments beyond the Bill of Rights?"

I think ditching all those amendments and starting over would be ideal. Most of them were written to usurp the power of the States.

The truth, though, is the Constitution has been dead since Jackson, at least. So, its kinda moot, now.

Mt Top Patriot said...

Good question AM:
"But how does that "protect and defend the Constitution" play into the Oath of Enlistment or Oath of Office?"

Your subsequent list is food for much thought, with far ranging consideration for the implications.

I would like to add a question to that list. With this caveat. I think it is reasonable, from my perspective, that the crux of protect and defend clause in that oath concerning enemies is to protect and defend people. After all it is people who constitute and idea. An idea, a concept of Liberty and freedoms ain't worth much without people. They are just ideas. You can't really enslave, kill, or imprison an idea.

So, the question for me goes like this, "Do we task the .mil with..." how about, determining who and what the enemy is?

I mean after all, determining what and who the enemy is, isn't that something that the .mil is all about? Kind of a institutional thing? And doesn't the .mil live and die by what the Constitution says what it can and what it can not do?

I'm not quite sure yet how to define it, but I don't buy into what your writing here AM. In a sense I smell a terrible double standard in what you are saying. Not you AM, but in the truth, of things you say. So in the large scheme of things, when it works well for the .mil, when no one rocks the boat, everyone is a hero, we did our duty, we paid the piper, we are due our quiet hard won respect.

Without doubt yes, that due is due.


I say the game has changed. The rules are whatever flavor of the week the rulers need to obtain totalitarian power. Nothing new there, except, these rules are an overt existential threat to the very foundations of everything we all know in ways our founders made no bones about would happen if we did not heed the past.

So if a little boy drawing chickens who have had enough can define this enemy, and a million or so deer hunters can determine this enemy as domestic, how can an institution, one that embodies the very definition of determining the threats and enemies to not only it's own existence as an armed force,(it wouldn't be much of an army if it couldn't right?), but to the existence of the nation state it serves, that after all is its very reason for it's existence, then the why of why it can not, does not, will not, recognize the domestic existence of the enemies in it's ranks, in it's executive leaders can only mean one thing.

Your dead nuts right AM. That oath don't mean a thing. It was all for show.
.mil itself is a domestic enemy.

It has a lot of guns and ammo, and
the skill to use them well.

Boy are the rest of us swinging in the breeze.

Call me incurably provincial. I'll put my money on fed up chickens and a rag tag group of deer hunters.

Never say die.

Brock Townsend said...

I'll put my money on fed up chickens and a rag tag group of deer hunters.

Me too.

Anonymous said...

People are EXACTLY what the oath demands the Constitution be defended AGAINST. Protecting and defending people is precisely, 180 degrees opposite the explicit intention of the oath.

That doesn't make the oath worthless, or the military a domestic enemy. It means anyone too pigheaded to grasp the meaning of the oath shouldn't get between the military and their allegience to it, on pain of getting exactly the treatment the founders so resolutely intended.
If you set a pitbull to guard a bone, you deserve to get your ass shredded for trying to screw with either one. Don't bitch at the dog for following its task so precisely. And don't be a dumbass.



As to the proposition that everything constitutional worth keeping was lost by Jackson's time, may I politely suggest they move to Atlanta or Harlem, and wear a sandwich board that declares
"I hate N*****s".
Mainly because the proposition that anyone's right to be so monumentally intellectually stunted were defended by either side in the War Between The States is unredeemably repugnant and morally indefensible. If you so despise the country you were born into - long after Jackson's time - find a suitable regime to move to, or simply kill yourself with all possible dispatch.
And may posterity forget you were ever our countrymen.

-Aesop

CV said...

It is the citizenry who is ultimately responsible to defend the natural rights we are born with. You are either a free man or you are not. At this point in time the government believes it bestows rights and therefore can take them away. At some point men must decide to live on their knees or defend what is naturally theirs. Debating over an oath that some believe is worth nothing to begin with is a waste of energy. Your either free or you are not.

Mt Top Patriot said...

You should take more heed of your own wise words CV. Being free to discuss this oath is everything to do with freedom of expression, is it not why we are here on AM's great blog? The fact I am free is why I am questioning the fealty of our fellow American's to that oath they have taken. They took that oath freely in a free open society. I am questioning the fealty to that oath because I intend to be as forewarned as possible so as to remain free in the advent that oath is not honored or otherwise. I hope it is honored. The implications of it not being honored are dire.

As a personal matter, that oath is very important to me, I consider it an oath that extends beyond to all who are American's, by the very nature of birth right. This is my country, and I have a responsibility, a natural born duty to honor the ingredients of that oath. It is a matter of unshakable principle and virtue for me. Our founders where very learned intelligent people who took a leap of faith in the good nature of people. Regardless of any mistakes or intentions, as AM put it "wiggle room" they may have enabled, they did many things right. That oath wasn't created just so it could be broken. I think the crux of it all is faith, belief in something larger than oneself. If one can not believe in an oath, or family, or God, or this here Republic, then how can you believe in anything, like Liberty and the rule of law verses the rule of men?

I want to now who my allies and who my enemies are. Fealty or lack of which tells the story, a litmus test of our society.

Debating that oath may be a waste of energy for you, I find it an investment, I am seeking the truth, if debate is part and parcel on that road to truth, that works well, as to the reality surrounding that oath and the impact it has on future events, I'll debate with anyone to get there. It has been an invaluable learning experience.
That makes me more free.
I hope it has helped others so far understanding a truly complex dynamic part of our country.

I learned a few things debating here with you about debating this subject.
So thanks!

Anonymous said...

I think it's clear where you went off into the weeds.

Our Founders had *absolutely no faith, none whatsoever* in the "good nature of people".

They were men, informed by Hobbes' "Leviathan", that life in a state of Nature was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

They were men informed by every lesson of history from Cain to George III, that people were unredeemed wickedness, and that even among the redeemed, "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

These weren't mere theories, they knew them in their bones, and lived the realities day after day, through a revolution, and out the other side into peace.

That's why they constructed a delicate counterbalance of opposing forces that hanstrings *everyone* from doing anything quickly or easily, from the Legislature, the Executive, the Courts, and the People, and had every one of them imbued with checks on each other.

These are not the actions of people who think men are good, but rather the actions of those who know they are utterly evil given a moment's chance.

That's why the oath is important, because someone screwing with the Constitution outside the authorized procedure is more deadly to liberty than a jihadist with a truckload of enriched plutonium. The latter might destroy a mere city or three, while the former would destroy an entire society.

Our military, with more fidelity than any in recorded history, have defended this document under the precepts of law without so much as a hiccup for nearly 2 1/2 centuries.

Rest assured that if the duly constituted civil authority points at you as a seditious insurrectionist, they can, they will, and they *ought* to follow their oath, and terminate you with extreme prejudice, in the continued obedience to that oath.

The best you can do is resolve to do everything humanly possible within the system, until the only way for someone to retain power is to so savage the Constitution that a blind man can see it.

Come that day, my sense is that either the military will rightly divide who falls where, or they will so fracture as to make concern for their future behavior unnecessary.

Calling them cowards now or directing them to commit treason is an approach unlikely to bear any fruit upon which you'd be inclined to dine, either now or later.

I therefore counsel a reappraisal of your course, after realigning your compass to due North, which at present is 180 degrees out of true.

Regards,
-Aesop

E said...

Check out this Constitutional Quiz. It will make you angry, probably.

http://www.starvingthemonkeys.com/articles/ConstitutionalQuizzery.html

Mt Top Patriot said...

Aesop, they had to believe in something dude. They sacrificed much and did a hell of a lot of work to create a nation for the good of people, far more work and sacrifice than most of us today have put in to preserving what they created. Selfless people tend to believe in the positive.
Do you have an axe to grind with the founders? That just seems like a grouchy comment coming from you. You usually have great things to say.
I can see why it is good thinking to distrust the nature of those who seek to rule over others. The world is full of tyrants. But to suggest the founders did not believe in the good of people, I couldn't disagree with you more.

As to your comment about "The best you can do is resolve to do everything humanly possible within the system..." How's it worked out for everyone so far? That very thing has enabled tyranny to creep up on us in all it's insidious ways in the first place.
Lack of Vigilance and due diligence.

"Our military, with more fidelity than any in recorded history, have defended this document under the precepts of law without so much as a hiccup for nearly 2 1/2 centuries."
Beg to differ with you, big difference here today, it has never been tasked with having to defend from a direct enemy that has gained power in the highest offices of the land. Might be all that history you mentioned don't amount to much, because there isn't a Constitutional Republic left that that oath was meant to protect. Along with that oath.
Oooops! There goes the baby with the bath water.

No hiccups?
What do you call the Civil War then?
How about the military actions surrounding broken treaties between the US Gov. and the Indians?

And by the way, you might want to bone up on what the intention of those who constructed the rule of Constitution law had to say about foreign wars and entanglements. Explain to me, does the military protect the Constitution, or the power of those in power, such as the president and his decrees. He can send the navy where he chooses, but the army, no. Explain how military involvement in Libya, among many other instances of incursions into sovereign nations, violating their sovereign state, no matter how much our elected representatives may not like something, is protecting the Constitution when no ratification was acquired from Congress, which is stated without doubt in the Constitution as a requirement to commit to war.

"Rest assured that if the duly constituted civil authority points at you as a seditious insurrectionist, they can, they will, and they *ought* to follow their oath, and terminate you with extreme prejudice, in the continued obedience to that oath."

Lt. Colonel Terry Larkin ring a bell? He might have a word of advice concerning the legality of that statement and oaths.

That's my liberty your talking about being jackbooted. They can shove that where the sun don't shine.

Mt Top Patriot said...

"...my sense is that either the military will rightly divide who falls where, or they will so fracture as to make concern for their future behavior unnecessary.'

Your probably pretty close to the truth there. I think the elites will be very happy to rid themselves of the hardcore dissenters. Can't have terroristic constitutionalists among the ranks. Remember, Forward! It's a new America fundamentally transformed. Only the true believers of diversity and king putt need apply.

It was an important question I asked, I think it needed to be asked, no one answered it. I never called anyone in the .mil a coward, I question the lack of what I perceive fealty to that oath was intended as. If it is out of cowardliness, that is a valid question to be asked, something that I do not know the answer to. I want to know. Very much so. They have careers, families, and homes and what not they stand to loose. What comes first? That, or that oath? I never judged, I asked questions to get the answers. I have the intestinal fortitude to ask delicate difficult ones. To date, those who have taken the oath, aside from vague replies from AM, and one anonymous commenter, who claims he is ex military, have responded. No one has said they stand by the founders intent of that oath, or any intent for that matter. Not even AM. He is keeping his powder dry. Why? Is everyone afraid of something? What is it? I would think there would be many willing to express their courage and thoughts concerning that oath.
Boy was I wrong!
(It is reasonable to propose those who took that oath had a brain with lucid cognitive processes at the time of induction. I think they don't accept known mentally insane and brain dead people into the military. Why are they silent? Is it too much to ask what these people who are our protectors intend? If they intend to liquidate me with extreme prejudice if I dissent from bowing to dictatorship, be a good thing to know before hand. And you don't like it because I asked Aesop? That is pretty arrogant to contend I am out of bounds there fella. If you want to submit, go for it. Me, I'll take my chances. I intend to die with my Liberty and virtue intact.)
So Aesop, what do you propose, the lack of 1st hand info regarding how folks who have taken that oath will behave, when called upon to defend from domestic enemies be called?

I have to scratch my head here in wonder. It looks like cowardliness, it looks like apathy, it looks like fear for personal well being, it looks like adhering to the politics of the day. What it don't look like to me, is bravery in the face of the domestic enemy among us.

But it is all assumption on my part, because I can't get a straight answer from the horses mouth.

I know for sure what I hope it to be. It sure ain't cowardliness pal.
We are gonna need all the help we can get as a people and nation to survive the shit storm the ruling class has in store for us.
The only stupid questions are the ones you don't ask.
My questions, they are valid ones.
I am ignorant of the facts, I certainly do not want to be. You got facts Aesop? I'm all ears. Did you take that oath Aesop?

Your telling me cowardliness, it could not happen? You got on my case about believing in people. Now it is OK to believe in people? People in the military put their pants on one leg at a time too.

I'll reprise my compass with facts and the truth. Not because you got a hair across your arse because you don't like my questioning fealty to that oath.

Did you take that oath Aesop?

Fess up with the truth.

If you did take that oath, what are you going to do?

Anonymous said...

The Founders, in word and by express intent and historical action, thought so little of the good of men that they made certain the only influence you have at the federal level was the casting of one measly vote for one single member of the House of Representatives (provided you were even among the 40% of adults even allowed to vote in, say, 1800).

Despite that, even in the face of a civil war, the military did *not* stage a banana republic military coup when a trouble maker from Illinois won the White House. You shouldn't hope they'll do so now either.

They also didn't self-deploy to either Wounded Knee or Libya; in both cases, they were sent there. Any beef with that is with Congress and the President, not the Joint Chiefs. And while we're at it, could you and I and 100+M of our friends stop returning such a pantload of buttnuggets to Washington election after election?
Surely no one from 1787 ever expected we'd all be serially inflicting such monumental fucktards as John McCain, Lindsay Grahamnesty, Chuck-U Schumer, Boxer, DiFi, Reid, Pelosi, and every Kennedy ever squirted out, in elections that resemble "Groundhog Day" more than Independence Day.
Is that the military's fault? The Constitution's? Or could it be...someone else's...?

I can't speak for 1-2 million men and women in uniform. But speaking as one who used to be, perhaps like me, they don't consider a rotten president equivalent to a tyrant. Perhaps they don't see things as black&white (considering to whom I refer, kindly forgve the unintended pun there) as you do. In fact, neither do the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens, most of whom didn't vote for anyone at all, in numbers that dwarf the turnout for either the Coke Party or the Diet Coke Party.

So possibly you're incredibly prescient, and just too darned early; or possibly you're just too crankypantsed about things. If not in absolute terms, at least in relative ones. So maybe take the opportunity that a miraculous Constitution defended by an incredibly faithful military has delivered into your lap, and think, speak, write, publish, assemble, petition, and otherwise agitate things to get enough folks on your side. Maybe even enough to make an armed revolution unnecessary. Because going for your guns means they go for theirs, and they have more than you can imagine. The functional equivalent of the Suicide Vest Option, being single-use, should only follow long and serious predeployment meditation.

I took the oath you inquired about, on 3 separate occasions. I lived up to it then, and I always will live up to it. There is almost nothing in life I'd say with such absolute certainty.

Like most people currently serving, I'd agree with Ben Franklin that "There never was a good war or a bad peace." That's a hatred of waste and a love of Life (not one's skin, but the incredibly wondrous adventure one experiences while wearing that skin). And as long as peace reigns, I choose to fulfill my oath well within the limits and responsibilities my Freedom entails. And to use that same freedom to do everything I can to prevent any war - without a shot if possible - or if it comes to do my level best to make that war winnable, but even if not to make it utterly detestable to any who would deliver it.

I counsel that you should concentrate on a similar course. In my experience, the very last people you want to f**k with in a war, are the people who've made a living at it. Especially when they get very, very quiet.


Have a Happy Thanksgiving, if only to piss off the "Occupy" crowd,
-Aesop

Mt Top Patriot said...

Happy Thanksgiving to you too Aesop. (I could give a rats ass who it pisses off. LOL's!)

Whats done is done. We got the ship of fools and grifters we got down in that cesspool on the Potomac and in our town halls because it is representative government, with a twist of gerrymander, social engineering and plain old vote fraud to make up the difference. The free shit crowd are gonna vote themselves the gravytrain till it all comes crashing down. Then use that ends as a means to justify an excuse to take what remains. And there's many waiting in the wings like that great community organizer, are gonna fan the flames with gasoline. Divide and conquer is time honored tyrants tactic. In the end, if nothing else, the useful dupes make great cannon fodder.

My regards for the heart felt and revealing insights. I think you wrote about some key things that are most enlightening.

I'm a firm believer in understanding, if for only, to believe in something, can one act with purpose.

The pen is mightier than the sword, but you still need the sword, at least to protect the pen.

War is an ugly nasty dirty thing full of misery, blood and dying. The wreckage in its path is too awful to not do everything possible that war is a last resort. So yes, you can say I'm crankypants. Damn straight. With whats coming down the pike, we got a shit sandwich being handed to us. I'm not taking a bite of it if I got anything to do with it. Guarantee you.

I hear you on the messing with folks who walk silently and carry a big stick. Music to the ears. It is an admirable noble strategy.

AM said...

Mt Top Patriot,

My vague replies will probably stay pretty vague. One of the things about being a Soldier is that you don't truly have freedom of speech.

My bigger point, is that the Oath is not a roadblock to tyranny. Nor is is the Constitution. And I think as soon as we recognize those facts, the sooner we can move beyond the "Oath Keeper Three Percenter" dogmatic answers and actually think about not repeating some of the mistakes the Founding Fathers made.

Mt Top Patriot said...

AM,
Thanks for the kindly comments.

I'm just saying, maybe it is time to think outside the box.

The premise of seeking answers to my questions concerning that oath was to understand the dynamics of the .mil in relation to where we are going as a people. You know, make the best plans and decisions based on the best intel to be had.

For sure, the oath is no panacea by any means. Things would be different if that was not true. It is people and what they do that can be. Still, there is though something inherently special and beautiful about the oath. The oath of marriage, for many is a tie that binds, a bond. It is something taken in a sacred manner. There is honor and dignity. Being true to something larger than yourself. Faith in something?
This is after all is said and done a republic that is essentially a system of government, a design, based on the will of people. Sure looks like the battle right now is a war of that will.
So yes certainly neither constructs of law are a road block to tyranny, if no one believes in them and or is willing to stand for them as originally intended.
I know there are a zillion arguments and points of view on what that means. I guess that is for each of us to determine for ourselves. There is that will thing again.
Ain't no answers that are clear without consequences that can be predicted with surety for any actions taken outside that box. Lot of folks are gunning for something in their special interest.
What a can of worms.

Peace and Happy Thanksgiving.