Preserve and Defend the Constitution?

[Coot]

Some of us here have taken that oath, and some haven't. Here's a question for debate:

Can you envision a time, series of events or action by the federal government that would cause you to take up arms to defend the United States and the Constitution from the federal government?

[Frodo Lives]

Some of us here have taken that oath, and some haven't. Here's a question for debate:

Can you envision a time, series of events or action by the federal government that would cause you to take up arms to defend the United States and the Constitution from the federal government?


If they ever decided to try to take away my guns (or my swords), I would take up arms and fight to the death. Also, if they decided tomorrow to make a law and make the punishment retroactive it would happen. Ex = Tomorrow they make jaywalking a federal crime and try to arrest those that did it yesterday before it was a law.

[Steve]

I can envision the action, if not the cause: suspension of most of the Bill of Rights. Imposition of nationwide martial law without cause.

[ravital]

Coot,

It's probably a good thing that my imagination can't come up with specific scenarios that could lead to that. But if in the end you have the U.S. government violating the Constitution in ways that result in what you might have seen in "Enemy of the State" or "The Siege"- personal vendettas or unbridled ambitions regardless of the cost - then yes, I can see myself in that position (I took the same oath). Not that I would want to be in that situation, because my victims would be Americans. It would have to take a whole lot, before I were driven to that.

[dliw]

It would be a heartbreaking day when I would have to engage fellow Americans in armed conflict.

As said by Steve: "suspension of most of the Bill of Rights. Imposition of nationwide martial law without cause." Without cause being the keywords.

[ethics]

Can you envision a time, series of events or action by the federal government that would cause you to take up arms to defend the United States and the Constitution from the federal government?

A knock at my door.

I answer, two soldiers asking me for my passport/ID whatever.

Asking them why, they base their answer on my nationality, religion (or lack thereof), or my political affiliation.

[ShinyTop]

My taking of the oath would require me to take up arms or other means against an administration who strayed to far over the line in denying the rights in the Constitution to the people. If still a member of the armed forces I would be forced to attempt to resign as the oath included "I will follow the orders of the officers appointed over me."

But no administration, no group of extreme left or right wingers need to ever think that many Americans would not take up arms to preserve the freedoms experienced by us and desired for our grandchildren. It is sad that so many local governments have successfully outlawed the ownership of weapons so that it makes the possibility of a tyrannical government removing our rights easier and therefore closer.

The far right and the far left are both so certain they are morally right that I put nothing past them if they gain enough control.

[cmhbob]

I can envision the action, if not the cause: suspension of most of the Bill of Rights. Imposition of nationwide martial law without cause.I'd go for this. I'd probably make sure wife and kids are provided for, then join up with a resistance group of some sort. I can birng my own toys to the games, and I took that oath as well.

There was a TV movie several years ago that postulated a 2d Civil War, and occasionally I dream about writing such a book. I supposed it's a good thing that I can't really easily get (in my mind) from where we are now to where we'd have to be for major armed conflict.

Hmm. Now I'm going to have to hunt that movie down on IMDB. Don't recall much about it, except that it involved some noon-American orphans, and the feds forced one state to take them, and that that state barricaded its borders, or something like that. At one point, the state announced that the governer would be holding a press conference discussing his sUccession, and the feds thought he said sEccession, and that's when the balloon went up.

Here it is: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120086/maindetails The Second Civil War

[cmhbob]

My taking of the oath would require me to take up arms or other means against an administration who strayed to far over the line in denying the rights in the Constitution to the people. If still a member of the armed forces I would be forced to attempt to resign as the oath included "I will follow the orders of the officers appointed over me."Shiny, it's been a while since I took my oath ('87), and we may have taken slightly different oaths, but didn't it specify "lawful orders" as opposed to "orders"?

Seems like I recall a big deal of instruction from the DS about whether we were allowed to consider if it was a lawful order or not...

[ShinyTop]

Shiny, it's been a while since I took my oath ('87), and we may have taken slightly different oaths, but didn't it specify "lawful orders" as opposed to "orders"?

Seems like I recall a big deal of instruction from the DS about whether we were allowed to consider if it was a lawful order or not...

I honestly do not remember whether the oath contained the word lawful and I took one oath as enlisted and another upon my commission. But I definitely can back that we were taught that orders must be lawful and that unlawful orders do not have to be obeyed.

The deep question is whether or not an officer can give a lawful order that is enforcing bad decisions by the president and his cabinet. The individual soldier cannot know every facet of the order as the operation comes down from on high.

I have long maintained, however, that American servicemen will not bomb, strafe, and attack with tanks crowds of American citizens.

[Stiofán]

Can you envision a time, series of events or action by the federal government that would cause you to take up arms to defend the United States and the Constitution from the federal government?

No, I cannot. I'll tell you why.

I think it's entirely feasible we'll lose some if not all our most cherished freedoms. But it will not happen overnight. The general populace will be lulled into complacency by a steady, slow, incremental erosion instead.

That's why I sometimes take positions here which are seemingly at odds with the board. It's why, when I don't smoke and never have, I'm against these nitpicking laws against smokers. I'm against taxing one small element of society (such as smokers or drinkers - sin taxes which are so popular now). I abhor federal mandates to take away states rights, such as anti-marijuana medicinal laws. I didn't like our federal government withholding badly needed highway infrastructure funds from states that didn't want to have a 55 mph speed limit. I feel abortion is disgusting, especially it's use as a mere contraceptive method, that's my personal view. I have no desire for my federal government to outlaw the ability to have one however, as the population has decided it's a valued freedom, so I'll argue for it. I also am against one small segment of society using the courts to take a small cross off a city seal, against the wishes of an entire community when there's no proof it was ever intended as anything more than a recognition of a historical basis of fact, so I'll argue against that.

We're losing our rights slowly but surely as we post. There is no question of that. There's a mindset by some that only they know what is best for others and how they must live. Let's take away the farmer's land because he bulldozed a brush-pile where an endangered rat lived.

The only near certainty I have is that I won't have to take up arms against the feds. It's going to happen much too slowly for that. And people like me talking about it are going to be labeled anachronisms and reactionaries and be dismissed.

[ethics]

Ah, but Steve, the question was towards to YOU not the general populace. I agree with your message but you didn't answer the question. :P

[Stiofán]

I read it again. I don't see what you mean. I can't envision a time, series of events or action by the federal government that would cause me to take up arms to defend the United States and the Constitution from the federal government, because I can never see it happening for the reasons I expressed.

Thats not to say I wouldn't be willing to, I just can't conceive it ever happening.

[ethics]

So you are saying you would be one of the few people who would see the problem (due to other's complacency) and thus would not garnish enough people for your armed struggle?

[Stiofán]

No, I'm saying that by the time it fully happened, it would be too late.

[ethics]

No, I'm saying that by the time it fully happened, it would be too late.

AHH! Sorry I am slow. :(

[Stiofán]

AHH! Sorry I am slow. :(

Case proven...... :happy:


(J/K)

[ravital]

I think it's entirely feasible we'll lose some if not all our most cherished freedoms. But it will not happen overnight. The general populace will be lulled into complacency by a steady, slow, incremental erosion instead.

That's exactly how it's going to happen, with one little crackpot ACLU (or other) lawsuit at a time, one demonstration against this or that at a time.

If you can raise the temperature of a bathtub by 1 degree ever 30 minutes, a person sitting in it will happily and calmly poach to death, and never feel any pain.

[rhobite]

That's exactly how it's going to happen, with one little crackpot ACLU (or other) lawsuit at a time, one demonstration against this or that at a time.

If you can raise the temperature of a bathtub by 1 degree ever 30 minutes, a person sitting in it will happily and calmly poach to death, and never feel any pain.
Actually, few organizations have done more to prevent the country from falling into despotism than the ACLU.

[wapu]

That's exactly how it's going to happen, with one little crackpot ACLU (or other) lawsuit at a time, one demonstration against this or that at a time.

But some could see it the other way around. Maybe it is one little Patriot Act here, another one there.

I could invision it. Should the Federal Government ever try what Putin is doing I might be tempted.

[dliw]

Or maybe we could consider both? IMHO, the ACLU is the agent provocateur of left wing multicultrualists, while the Patriot Act is the tool of the security apparatus which can be overturned. Personally, I would rather take my chances with the Patriot Act.

[Biker]

Enlistment Oath

In the Armed Forces EXCEPT the National Guard (Army or Air)

I, ___________________________________, do solemly 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 overme, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

In the National Guard (Army or Air)

I, _________________________________, do solemly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of ___________________________________ 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 Governor of ________________________ and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God.

[Sarge]

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. (IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776, The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America)

[AmeritecTech]

Some of us here have taken that oath, and some haven't. Here's a question for debate:

Can you envision a time, series of events or action by the federal government that would cause you to take up arms to defend the United States and the Constitution from the federal government?
Yes.

The federal government has already strayed far from the Constitution. I can't say where the breaking point is, but it certainly exists.

[AmeritecTech]

I honestly do not remember whether the oath contained the word lawful and I took one oath as enlisted and another upon my commission. But I definitely can back that we were taught that orders must be lawful and that unlawful orders do not have to be obeyed.

The deep question is whether or not an officer can give a lawful order that is enforcing bad decisions by the president and his cabinet. The individual soldier cannot know every facet of the order as the operation comes down from on high.

I have long maintained, however, that American servicemen will not bomb, strafe, and attack with tanks crowds of American citizens.
If I recall correctly, this has already happened. A bomb was dropped on striking workers quite some while ago. I forget the specifics.

[AmeritecTech]

Personally, I would rather take my chances with the Patriot Act.
Given the choice between a little temporary safety and essential liberty, you choose a little temporary safety?

[dliw]

Given the choice between a little temporary safety and essential liberty, you choose a little temporary safety?No. I reject that option. I am of the belief the slightest touch upon liberty should be done in the name of security. Those parts of the Patriot Act which oversteps the bounds of necessity can be judicially overturned.

On the other hand is the ACLU which uses the judiciary to chip away at individual freedoms via the philosophy of multiculturalism and the exaggeration of the separation clause. Instead of the Red, White and Blue they want the bland, grey and muted.

As said before, I'll take my chances with the Patriot Act. At least with that my rights won't make my life a wrong and I won't be hauled off to a liberal court.

[Stiofán]

On the other hand is the ACLU which uses the judiciary to chip away at individual freedoms via the philosophy of multiculturalism and the exaggeration of the separation clause. Instead of the Red, White and Blue they want the bland, grey and muted.


American has turned from a meat based melting pot stew to a vegan tossed salad, with everything thrown together, but all ingredients distinct and different. I think I've got indigestion.

[dliw]

Yes. Actually your analogy is more correct.

[rhobite]

On the other hand is the ACLU which uses the judiciary to chip away at individual freedoms via the philosophy of multiculturalism and the exaggeration of the separation clause. Instead of the Red, White and Blue they want the bland, grey and muted.Sorry if I keep calling you guys on the ACLU pot-shots, but... WTF? Exactly what freedom of yours has the ACLU "chipped away" at? The freedom to lock up people for attending KKK rallies? The freedom to fine people for putting signs in their windows? The freedom to imprison people for private, consensual sexual acts?

I'm sorry that they don't defend the second amendment, that is one of their shortcomings. But don't invalidate the rest of their work.

[Coot]

The ACLU is a 50/50 proposition AFAIC, it was just last year that they attempted to interfere in a free, legal and sanctioned election for partisan purposes.

[rhobite]

Well, I don't agree with the ACLU on that one but I wouldn't call it "chipping away at individual freedom" to delay the California recall until counties updated their voting equipment.

[Stiofán]

Problem was, and we all saw it, the same voting equiptment that suddenly had to be changed was the same that elected their man Davis 7 months earlier.

[ethics]

I think today's ruling makes me pissed, and while I am not ready for an armed struggle, I am willing to do everything else.

[John R. Beanham]

ethics,


"Asking them why, they base their answer on my nationality, religion (or lack thereof), or my political affiliation."

And if your name was Mohammed Atta?


JB<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[ethics]

Innocent until proven guilty. Besides, Atta is dead.

[Lovehound]

Some of us here have taken that oath, and some haven't. Here's a question for debate:

Can you envision a time, series of events or action by the federal government that would cause you to take up arms to defend the United States and the Constitution from the federal government?Hell yes. All the people before me died to protect and preserve my freedom. I'd be a boor to not protect our Constitutional rights and before that our God given rights (assuming religious viewpoint) to freedom.

I'm damned scared today. They are taking away our property rights (today's SCOTUS decision re: eminent domain), our rights to free speech and expression (the flag burning controversy), attempting to turn over the decision regarding our rights to control our bodies (challenges to Roe v. Wade), separation between church and state (teaching ID in schools, claiming it's not religion) and our rights to privacy (PATRIOT Act). Is everybody else asleep?

I hear if you drop a frog into boiling water it will jump out and save itself, but if you put a frog into a pot of cold water over a slow fire the temperature will slowly rise until the frog passes out and gets cooked.

Today we are the frog. Are we going to jump out of the pot of warm water or will we allow ourselves to be cooked?

Gimme my gun.

[John R. Beanham]

Ameritec,


"The federal government has already strayed far from the Constitution. I can't say where the breaking point is, but it certainly exists."


Isn't that why both our countries have Supreme Courts?

JB<!-- / message -->

[Coot]

Isn't that why both our countries have Supreme Courts?

John, sometimes even that fails miserably (http://globalaffairs.org/forum/showthread.php?t=35388).

[Lovehound]

John, sometimes even that fails miserably (http://globalaffairs.org/forum/showthread.php?t=35388).You got that damned right!

[joseftu]

If you can raise the temperature of a bathtub by 1 degree ever 30 minutes, a person sitting in it will happily and calmly poach to death, and never feel any pain.

I hear if you drop a frog into boiling water it will jump out and save itself, but if you put a frog into a pot of cold water over a slow fire the temperature will slowly rise until the frog passes out and gets cooked.

Today we are the frog. Are we going to jump out of the pot of warm water or will we allow ourselves to be cooked?
Off topic, but it struck me funny...in the past eight months, the person in the tub turned into a frog in a pot!
:)

[Lovehound]

That's what you risk by digging up an old thread! :)

Maybe one of our distaff GA members should kiss the frog and see if it turns into a boiled prince...

[Coot]

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. (IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776, The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America)

Way back when, when I started this thread, this was the response I was hoping I'd see and that others would seize. What happened in this country 229 years ago, is and was unique on this planet. What's happening in this country today, in my honest opinion, isn't. I've alluded to it before (http://www.globalaffairs.org/forum/showpost.php?p=301280&postcount=3), but I think the fix, if it gets here, will be a bit late.

Pressed further, Scalia also points out quite matter of factly how the concept of an evolving Constitution also threatens the stability of the country...at least that's my take. His position is that if we believe the Constitution evolves, and we rely on the judiciary and the SCOTUS to periodically tell us what that document now means, we've politicized the judiciary. Once that happens in a democracy, citizens will attempt to take control of said democracy...and that's what he sees as happening now, with the left trying to challenge everything under the sun in courts, and the right trying to use the power of congress to nullify courts. Turn the power of the legislative around, and you have the same thing...the majority in control of the government attempting to control the judiciary for their own political ends.

Odd how this fourth of July and a SCOTUS opening coincide.

At the root of this argument lies two divergent points of view, the center of which involves who interprets the Constitution and how. I believe a fully functional and healthy SCOTUS is all that would prevent an open revolution in this country. The two dominant parties would disagree. They see the power of the body and have determined that bending it to their purposes is a natural progression. I see it as the next path to hell, or the EU or Stalinism...take your pick.

At any rate, I believe the country is at a crossroads, and we're at a point where we either choose how we're ruled and make the decision again today to be free; or we piss away the greatest opportunity that our forefathers paid for with their blood and join the billions of sheeple on the planet.

[Fiona]

No, I cannot. I'll tell you why.

I think it's entirely feasible we'll lose some if not all our most cherished freedoms. But it will not happen overnight. The general populace will be lulled into complacency by a steady, slow, incremental erosion instead.http://www.globalaffairs.org/forum/images/smilies/appl.gif:notworthy:thumbsup:

[Fiona]

At any rate, I believe the country is at a crossroads, and we're at a point where we either choose how we're ruled and make the decision again today to be free; or we piss away the greatest opportunity that our forefathers paid for with their blood and join the billions of sheeple on the planet.Baaaaa! I agree... and It could go either way. I've discussed this SCOTUS stuff with so many people in the last days... It's like the first step of an intruder with intent across my threshhold... I really don't want to fight. I really don't want to kill you. But if you take one more step I'm gonna blow you into next Tuesday. It makes me heartsick... my goods are packed, my guns are cleaned, my family has been briefed. I'm not expecting a revolution. But I'm prepared.
http://www.globalaffairs.org/forum/images/smilies/disappoint.gif

[Lovehound]

I have been concerned about Americans losing freedom since the day the PATRIOT Act was passed. The terrorists have got us so wrapped up in worrying about our safety that it appears we (or at least our leaders) are willing to give up some freedom in exchange for security.

_________________________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

[Stiofán]

I have been concerned about Americans losing freedom since the day the PATRIOT Act was passed. The terrorists have got us so wrapped up in worrying about our safety that it appears we (or at least our leaders) are willing to give up some freedom in exchange for security.

Does anyone really feel anymore secure today? Good article in today's LA Daily News about our northern border. http://tinyurl.com/7b46g

Seems the Bushies are serious about security only when it suits them, and border security does not.

[Fiona]

I have been concerned about Americans losing freedom since the day the PATRIOT Act was passed.Yeah- me too! I was on the fence for awhile about some of the related issues that came along. I'm pretty sure what yard i'm in now ;)