Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So 2pid...
On Sep 16, 7:36*pm, George M. Middius
wrote: militias became the new nation's sole ground army, with the exception of one battery of artillery guarding West Point's arsenal. BTW, the FA is the branch of the military that has the longest record of consecutive service as a result of this. |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So 2pid...
On 16 Sep, 22:02, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article , *Clyde Slick wrote: On 16 Sep, 21:30, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 16, 7:36*pm, George M. Middius wrote: Shhhh! said: ł I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of...#Military_Oath Can you understand why our founding fathers might not have wanted to have our military do the same? ;-) The loyalty oath dates back to the 1770s? We were barely even a country then. "The Continental Army was created on June 14, 1775 by the Continental Congress as a unified army for the states to fight Great Britain, with George Washington appointed as its commander. [...] After the war, though, the Continental Army was quickly disbanded as part of the Americans' distrust of standing armies, and irregular state militias became the new nation's sole ground army, with the exception of one battery of artillery guarding West Point's arsenal. However, because of continuing conflict with Native Americans, it was soon realized that it was necessary to field a trained standing army. The first of these, the Legion of the United States, was established in 1791." That's also from wikipedia. As is this: One notable difference between the officer and enlisted oaths is that the oath taken by officers does not include any provision to obey orders; while enlisted personnel are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey lawful orders, officers in the service of the United States are bound by this oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States. and Note also that this is not an oath to defend any specific territory or persons or property. This is an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. I agree with you on that. I never said it was to defend any particular territory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...rvices_Oath_of.... I wonder how long Clyde will continue his ridiculous argument. LoL.- Yeah, the Government is the embodiment of our Constitution. The whole damn purpose of the Constitution is to empower and legitimize our government. So, when you swear allegiance to the Constitution, your are swearkng allegiance to the government. That is the whole point of'the Constitution, to make our government. You cannot swear allegiance to the Constitution without swearing allegiance to the government. the Constitution is absolutely meaningless without our government. *If you ahve no allegiance to the government, you just can't have any allegiance to the Constitution. UNLESS you want to argue that the government we have is not the same government as prescribed by the Constitution. Do you want to go there? Since the government can act un-Constitutionally, your argument fails. Stephen- It really can't, at least not for very long. You do know what function the Supreme Court has, don't you? You do know it is part of our government, don't you? you do know what Congress does, don't you? You do know that Congress is part of the government, don't you? You do know what the balance of power and the separation of the htree branches of government are, don't you? |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So 2pid...
On 16 Sep, 22:33, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: On Sep 16, 8:40*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: In the US, the President is the President, he is not the embodiment of the government. By swearing allegiance to the Constitution, one is swearing allegiance [to] our forms (sic) of government I'll agree with this, but this is not the same as "swearing allegiance to the government". Your argument about swearing allegiance to the government is incorrect. As Stephen points out, the government can act unconstitutionally. Part of the government can,but not for long. The separation of powers allows the other parts to correct that. An act that you might think is unconstitutional is not so, until and unless the Supreme Court rules it so, or the Congress and the states amend the Constitutiion. As Wiki points out, military officers are sworn to disobey unconstitutional orders, which is why officers do not swear to obey every order they receive in the Officer's Oath of Office. Your argument is "If one has sworn to allegiance to, and to defend, the Constitution, one must also swear to allegiance to, and to defend, the government. I never said you 'must' do it, I said you 'have done' it, by swearing allegiance to the Constitution, one is swearing allegiance to the government. The Constitution is the foundation and walls of the government. What the Constitution is all about 'IS' the giovernment It is not the case that one swears allegiance to the government. Therefore, one has not sworn allegiance to the Constitution." Take this to any elementary logic teacher and tell them there's this guy in the US who doesn't buy your argument. LoL. You can try to twist, you can try to change the meaning, but there is one thing you cannot be: correct about this. Sorry! |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So 2pid...
On 16 Sep, 22:53, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: On Sep 16, 8:31*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 16 Sep, 19:21, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" You don't have to agree that those actions are correct policy, but as an officer, you have to follow the constititionally empowered course of action determined by the appropriate authorities, be it the Executive *branch, the Congress, or the Courts. Not according to the right-wing whacko I quoted from the GOP website I don't care about your right wing wacko GOP friends, nor your left wing wacko Democratic friends. Consider this, Clyde: An order comes down from the President, the DOD, the Joint Chiefs, the Supreme Court, or any other constitutionally elected or appointed official, department or government entity: "Take the prisoners of war out behind the woodshed and shoot them all, without a trial and without charges." If I follow that order, I am not defending the US constitution. According to you, if I do not follow that order, I am not defending the US Constitution. Get it? By not shooting him, you are defending the government. Yes, the lawful Constitutional government. You don't understand what 'the government' is. it is all three branches. You seem to think the Executive is the sole entity of government. If you had paid close attention to my previous remarks, you would have gotten the drift. The government is all three branches, as described in the Constitution, |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So 2pid...
On 16 Sep, 22:56, George M. Middius wrote:
Clyde Slick said: The whole damn purpose of the Constitution is to empower and legitimize our government. My reading of the Amendments (especially the first five) leads me to an entirely different conclusion. the parts that set up the powers of the legislative, judicial and executive branches are the meat and potatoes. If the government were not so empowered, it would have the ability to protect the rights as described in those amendments. Remeber this, it was the Constitutionally enabled powers of the government that protected the 14th Amendment rights of the people to have desegregated schools. My God! the whole gist of liberalism is to use the power of the government tom protect Constitutional rights. Without the power of government, we would not be able to\protect our rights. this is a tenet of your own liberalism. I am not complaining about it, it is a damn good thing. |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So 2pid...
On 16 Sep, 22:57, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: On Sep 16, 8:30*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 16 Sep, 19:18, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 16, 5:06*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 15 Sep, 23:09, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 15, 9:57*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 15 Sep, 21:23, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 15, 5:30*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 15 Sep, 16:45, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: ...if somebody says "I am an anarchist" are they an enemy of the Constitution? How about if anarchists are planning a "protest" in a public library? Should a declaration or planned "protest" like that be grounds for imprisonment? And a military expert like you must *certainly* know that an soldier's or officer's oath is to the Constitution and *not* the government? Not true, read what you quoted below it is to BOTH No, it isn't. Please show me what you are referring to. "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962). "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, " that is an oath, and its an oath to the government, Nope. to obey the orders of the President and officers appointed over you That 'is' the governmnet. No, Clyde, as I said that is an oath to follow the orders of the military chain of command. The President in CinC. And that's the enlisted version of the oath. Look at the officer's version. Do you see anything missing? (Hint: it's what you just quoted.) Don't believe me? Don't believe the quotes I provided in the other post? Look it up then. You're wrong and you're chasing your tail. You've hung around 2pid too long. LoL.- Ascunde citatul - I going th have to repeat this numerous time before you get it. The government is legally constituted by the Constitution, and derives its powers through the Constitution. I you have no allegiance to the legally constituted government, you therefore do not have allegiance to the Constitution, you are just thumbiing your nose at it. That is not a valid argument. Look at it this way to understand why: "If A, then B" "Not B, therefore not A" This is a totally and conclusively invalid form of argument. Go study "Logic 101" to understand why.- Your only argument is that you believe our 'government is Unconstitutional. Nope. You must believe that either the President, COngress *and/or the Supreme Court lack legitimacy. The form or the actual people who temporarily fill the position? I am sworn to defend the form, not the people who fill them. Get it?- I never said otherwise, get it? It's the Constitutional offices you are sworn to, not individuals, I already said that when you posed your monarchy example. |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So 2pid...
On 16 Sep, 22:59, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: On Sep 16, 8:26*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 16 Sep, 18:19, MiNe 109 * wrote: In article , *Clyde Slick wrote: I going th have to repeat this numerous time before you get it. The government is legally constituted by the Constitution, and derives its powers through the Constitution. I you have no allegiance to the legally constituted government, you therefore do not have allegiance to the Constitution, you are just thumbiing your nose at it. Repeating it doesn't make it correct and you have it backward. If you pledge to the government, like the Justice Department's "loyal Bushies," you disdain the Constitution. We will leave that to the Supreme Court to decide. I see that you don't really believe in the Constitution. You have no allegiance to it. Your blind patriotism is dangerous. As is your fundamental misunderstanding of the military oath.- Ascunde citatul - I am patriotic to our government, its institutions, I have no allegiemce to any particular people who hold those offices. take Nancy Pelosi, for example, I have no allegiance to'her in particular, but I have allegiance to the institution of Congress and to the Office of the Speaker of the House, the position which she presently holds.. |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So 2pid...
On 17 Sep, 00:07, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: On Sep 16, 7:36*pm, George M. Middius wrote: militias became the new nation's sole ground army, with the exception of one battery of artillery guarding West Point's arsenal. BTW, the FA is the branch of the military that has the longest record of consecutive service as a result of this. I am not much up on military acronyms. Is FA field artillery? |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So 2pid...
Clyde Slick said: but I have allegiance to the institution of Congress and to the Office of the Speaker of the House, the position which[sic] she presently holds.. Why do you have this allegiance? Are you a federal employee now? |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So 2pid...
On Sep 17, 12:10*am, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 16 Sep, 22:59, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 16, 8:26*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 16 Sep, 18:19, MiNe 109 * wrote: In article , *Clyde Slick wrote: I going th have to repeat this numerous time before you get it. The government is legally constituted by the Constitution, and derives its powers through the Constitution. I you have no allegiance to the legally constituted government, you therefore do not have allegiance to the Constitution, you are just thumbiing your nose at it. Repeating it doesn't make it correct and you have it backward. If you pledge to the government, like the Justice Department's "loyal Bushies," you disdain the Constitution. We will leave that to the Supreme Court to decide. I see that you don't really believe in the Constitution. You have no allegiance to it. Your blind patriotism is dangerous. As is your fundamental misunderstanding of the military oath. I am patriotic to our government, its institutions, I have no allegiemce to any particular people who hold those offices. take Nancy Pelosi, for example, I have no allegiance to'her in particular, but I have allegiance to the institution of Congress and to the Office of the Speaker of the House, the position which she presently holds.. So you have allegiance to our form of government as spelled out in the Constitution. So do I. I took an oath to defend the Constitution. Since we agree, what are we arguing about? |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So 2pid...
On Sep 17, 12:07*am, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 16 Sep, 22:57, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 16, 8:30*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 16 Sep, 19:18, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 16, 5:06*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 15 Sep, 23:09, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 15, 9:57*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 15 Sep, 21:23, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 15, 5:30*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 15 Sep, 16:45, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: ...if somebody says "I am an anarchist" are they an enemy of the Constitution? How about if anarchists are planning a "protest" in a public library? Should a declaration or planned "protest" like that be grounds for imprisonment? And a military expert like you must *certainly* know that an soldier's or officer's oath is to the Constitution and *not* the government? Not true, read what you quoted below it is to BOTH No, it isn't. Please show me what you are referring to. "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962). "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, " that is an oath, and its an oath to the government, Nope. to obey the orders of the President and officers appointed over you That 'is' the governmnet. No, Clyde, as I said that is an oath to follow the orders of the military chain of command. The President in CinC. And that's the enlisted version of the oath. Look at the officer's version. Do you see anything missing? (Hint: it's what you just quoted.) Don't believe me? Don't believe the quotes I provided in the other post? Look it up then. You're wrong and you're chasing your tail. You've hung around 2pid too long. LoL.- Ascunde citatul - I going th have to repeat this numerous time before you get it. The government is legally constituted by the Constitution, and derives its powers through the Constitution. I you have no allegiance to the legally constituted government, you therefore do not have allegiance to the Constitution, you are just thumbiing your nose at it. That is not a valid argument. Look at it this way to understand why: "If A, then B" "Not B, therefore not A" This is a totally and conclusively invalid form of argument. Go study "Logic 101" to understand why.- Your only argument is that you believe our 'government is Unconstitutional. Nope. You must believe that either the President, COngress *and/or the Supreme Court lack legitimacy. The form or the actual people who temporarily fill the position? I am sworn to defend the form, not the people who fill them. Get it?- I never said otherwise, get it? It's the Constitutional offices you are sworn to, not individuals, I already said that when you posed your monarchy example. Good. Then we can end this. I am not sworn to defend the government, which is composed of people. I'm sworn to defend the form of government as spelled out in the Constitution. So are we done now? |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So 2pid...
On Sep 16, 11:58Â*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 16 Sep, 22:53, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 16, 8:31Â*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 16 Sep, 19:21, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" You don't have to agree that those actions are correct policy, but as an officer, you have to follow the constititionally empowered course of action determined by the appropriate authorities, be it the Executive Â*branch, the Congress, or the Courts. Not according to the right-wing whacko I quoted from the GOP website I don't care about your right wing wacko GOP friends, nor your left wing wacko Democratic friends. Consider this, Clyde: An order comes down from the President, the DOD, the Joint Chiefs, the Supreme Court, or any other constitutionally elected or appointed official, department or government entity: "Take the prisoners of war out behind the woodshed and shoot them all, without a trial and without charges." If I follow that order, I am not defending the US constitution. According to you, if I do not follow that order, I am not defending the US Constitution. Get it? By not shooting him, you are defending the government. I am disobeying the government. Yes, the lawful Constitutional government. You don't understand what 'the government' is. it is all three branches. What do you suppose "President, the DOD, the Joint Chiefs, the Supreme Court, or any other constitutionally elected or appointed official, department or government entity" means? You seem to think the Executive is the sole entity of government. Um, I mentioned two of the three branches of government in my hypothetical example and implied the third (any other constitutionally elected or appointed official, department or government entity). If you had paid close attention to my previous remarks, you would have gotten the drift. The government is all three branches, as described in the Constitution. The Constitution describes the *form* of government. The actual *government* is comprised of the people elected or appointed to govern, plus the beaureacrats etc. (police, fire, etc.). He Main Entry: gov·ern·ment Pronunciation: \ËgÉ-vÉr(n)-mÉnt, -vÉ-mÉnt; ËgÉ-bÉm-Ént, -vÉm-\ Function: noun Usage: often attributive Date: 14th century 1: the act or process of governing ; specifically : authoritative direction or control 3 a: the office, authority, or function of governing 4: the continuous exercise of authority over and the performance of functions for a political unit : rule 5 a: the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it b: the complex of political institutions, laws, and customs through which the function of governing is carried out 6: the body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization: as a: the officials comprising the governing body of a political unit and constituting the organization as an active agency bcapitalized : the executive branch of the United States federal government ccapitalized : a small group of persons holding simultaneously the principal political executive offices of a nation or other political unit and being responsible for the direction and supervision of public affairs: (1): such a group in a parliamentary system constituted by the cabinet or by the ministry (2): Main Entry: gov·ern Pronunciation: \ËgÉ-vÉrn\ Function: verb Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French governer, from Latin gubernare to steer, govern, from Greek kybernan Date: 14th century transitive verb 1 a: to exercise continuous sovereign authority over ; especially : to control and direct the making and administration of policy in b: to rule without sovereign power and usually without having the authority to determine basic policy http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/government These are people-related. In defending the Constitution you are defending the form of government plus the other articles and amendments. It is not a political oath. That is one reason why the oath for military personnel is to the Constitution and not the government. Are we done now? |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So 2pid...
On Sep 16, 11:40*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 16 Sep, 22:02, MiNe 109 * wrote: In article , *Clyde Slick wrote: On 16 Sep, 21:30, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 16, 7:36*pm, George M. Middius wrote: Shhhh! said: ł I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of...#Military_Oath Can you understand why our founding fathers might not have wanted to have our military do the same? ;-) The loyalty oath dates back to the 1770s? We were barely even a country then. "The Continental Army was created on June 14, 1775 by the Continental Congress as a unified army for the states to fight Great Britain, with George Washington appointed as its commander. [...] After the war, though, the Continental Army was quickly disbanded as part of the Americans' distrust of standing armies, and irregular state militias became the new nation's sole ground army, with the exception of one battery of artillery guarding West Point's arsenal. However, because of continuing conflict with Native Americans, it was soon realized that it was necessary to field a trained standing army. The first of these, the Legion of the United States, was established in 1791." That's also from wikipedia. As is this: One notable difference between the officer and enlisted oaths is that the oath taken by officers does not include any provision to obey orders; while enlisted personnel are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey lawful orders, officers in the service of the United States are bound by this oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States. and Note also that this is not an oath to defend any specific territory or persons or property. This is an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. I agree with you on that. I never said it was to defend any particular territory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...rvices_Oath_of... I wonder how long Clyde will continue his ridiculous argument. LoL.- Yeah, the Government is the embodiment of our Constitution. The whole damn purpose of the Constitution is to empower and legitimize our government. So, when you swear allegiance to the Constitution, your are swearkng allegiance to the government. That is the whole point of'the Constitution, to make our government. You cannot swear allegiance to the Constitution without swearing allegiance to the government. the Constitution is absolutely meaningless without our government. *If you ahve no allegiance to the government, you just can't have any allegiance to the Constitution. UNLESS you want to argue that the government we have is not the same government as prescribed by the Constitution. Do you want to go there? Since the government can act un-Constitutionally, your argument fails. Stephen- It really can't, at least not for very long. You do know what function the Supreme Court has, don't you? You do know it is part of our government, don't you? you do know what Congress does, don't you? You do know that Congress is part of the government, don't you? You do know what the balance of power and the separation of the htree branches of government are, don't you? Since this has nothing to do with the military oath to the Constitution your argument fails. |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So 2pid...
On Sep 17, 12:11*am, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 17 Sep, 00:07, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 16, 7:36*pm, George M. Middius wrote: militias became the new nation's sole ground army, with the exception of one battery of artillery guarding West Point's arsenal. BTW, the FA is the branch of the military that has the longest record of consecutive service as a result of this. I am not much up on military acronyms. Is FA field artillery? Yes. We're quite proud of the fact that the FA has this unbroken string of service going back to the Revolution. You might find this interesting. I've seen them fire at the Boston Commons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient...assach usetts |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So 2pid...
On Sep 16, 11:49*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 16 Sep, 22:33, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 16, 8:40*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: In the US, the President is the President, he is not the embodiment of the government. By swearing allegiance to the Constitution, one is swearing allegiance [to] our forms (sic) of government I'll agree with this, but this is not the same as "swearing allegiance to the government". Your argument about swearing allegiance to the government is incorrect. As Stephen points out, the government can act unconstitutionally. Part of the government can,but not for long. The separation of powers allows the other parts to correct that. An act that you might think is unconstitutional is not so, until and unless the Supreme Court rules it so, or the Congress and the states amend the Constitutiion. As Wiki points out, military officers are sworn to disobey unconstitutional orders, which is why officers do not swear to obey every order they receive in the Officer's Oath of Office. Your argument is "If one has sworn to allegiance to, and to defend, the Constitution, one must also swear to allegiance to, and to defend, the government. I never said you 'must' do it, I said you 'have done' it, by swearing allegiance to the Constitution, one is swearing allegiance to the government. One is swearing to defend the FORM of government, not the government. Clyde, you are wrong. Period. The Constitution is the foundation and walls of the government. What the Constitution is all about 'IS' the giovernment The Constitution is all about the FORM of government. There is a difference between "government" and "form (or system) of government". Our form of government is a representative republic, or representative democracy, as spelled out in the Constitution. A government is "the organization, that is the governing authority of a political unit,"[1] "the ruling power in a political society,"[2] and the apparatus through which a governing body functions and exercises authority.[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governm..._of_government A form of government is a term that refers to the set of political institutions by which a government of a state is organized in order to exert its powers over a Community politics.[1] Synonyms include "regime type" and "system of government". This definition holds valid even if the government is unsuccessful in exerting its power. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forms_of_government Government equals "people in power" or "political entities in power". I am not sworn to defend them. Form of government equals "the type or system of government", not the government itself. I am sworn to defend the system of government spelled out in the Constitution. If you are confusing these two terms and calling them identical, and if you mean "form of government" when you say "government", then we agree. If not, then we don't. Are we done now? |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So 2pid...
In article
, Clyde Slick wrote: On 16 Sep, 22:02, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , *Clyde Slick wrote: On 16 Sep, 21:30, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 16, 7:36*pm, George M. Middius wrote: Shhhh! said: ł I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of...#Military_Oath Can you understand why our founding fathers might not have wanted to have our military do the same? ;-) The loyalty oath dates back to the 1770s? We were barely even a country then. "The Continental Army was created on June 14, 1775 by the Continental Congress as a unified army for the states to fight Great Britain, with George Washington appointed as its commander. [...] After the war, though, the Continental Army was quickly disbanded as part of the Americans' distrust of standing armies, and irregular state militias became the new nation's sole ground army, with the exception of one battery of artillery guarding West Point's arsenal. However, because of continuing conflict with Native Americans, it was soon realized that it was necessary to field a trained standing army. The first of these, the Legion of the United States, was established in 1791." That's also from wikipedia. As is this: One notable difference between the officer and enlisted oaths is that the oath taken by officers does not include any provision to obey orders; while enlisted personnel are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey lawful orders, officers in the service of the United States are bound by this oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States. and Note also that this is not an oath to defend any specific territory or persons or property. This is an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. I agree with you on that. I never said it was to defend any particular territory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...rvices_Oath_of... I wonder how long Clyde will continue his ridiculous argument. LoL.- Yeah, the Government is the embodiment of our Constitution. The whole damn purpose of the Constitution is to empower and legitimize our government. So, when you swear allegiance to the Constitution, your are swearkng allegiance to the government. That is the whole point of'the Constitution, to make our government. You cannot swear allegiance to the Constitution without swearing allegiance to the government. the Constitution is absolutely meaningless without our government. *If you ahve no allegiance to the government, you just can't have any allegiance to the Constitution. UNLESS you want to argue that the government we have is not the same government as prescribed by the Constitution. Do you want to go there? Since the government can act un-Constitutionally, your argument fails. Stephen- It really can't, at least not for very long. You do know what function the Supreme Court has, don't you? You do know it is part of our government, don't you? you do know what Congress does, don't you? You do know that Congress is part of the government, don't you? You do know what the balance of power and the separation of the htree branches of government are, don't you? Epic fail. Stephen |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So 2pid...
On 17 Sep, 01:22, George M. Middius wrote:
Clyde Slick said: but I have allegiance to the institution of Congress and to the Office of the Speaker of the House, the position which[sic] she presently holds.. Why do you have this allegiance? Are you a federal employee now? Duh, I am a citizen. |
#58
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So 2pid...
On 17 Sep, 02:54, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: On Sep 17, 12:10*am, Clyde Slick wrote: On 16 Sep, 22:59, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 16, 8:26*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 16 Sep, 18:19, MiNe 109 * wrote: In article , *Clyde Slick wrote: I going th have to repeat this numerous time before you get it. The government is legally constituted by the Constitution, and derives its powers through the Constitution. I you have no allegiance to the legally constituted government, you therefore do not have allegiance to the Constitution, you are just thumbiing your nose at it. Repeating it doesn't make it correct and you have it backward. If you pledge to the government, like the Justice Department's "loyal Bushies," you disdain the Constitution. We will leave that to the Supreme Court to decide. I see that you don't really believe in the Constitution. You have no allegiance to it. Your blind patriotism is dangerous. As is your fundamental misunderstanding of the military oath. I am patriotic to our government, its institutions, I have no allegiemce to any particular people who hold those offices. take Nancy Pelosi, for example, I have no allegiance to'her in particular, but I have allegiance to the institution of Congress and to the Office of the Speaker of the House, the position which she presently holds.. So you have allegiance to our form of government as spelled out in the Constitution. So do I. I took an oath to defend the Constitution. Since we agree, what are we arguing about?- that youn think is doesn't have anything to with the government. |
#59
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So 2pid...
On 17 Sep, 02:56, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: On Sep 17, 12:07*am, Clyde Slick wrote: On 16 Sep, 22:57, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 16, 8:30*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 16 Sep, 19:18, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 16, 5:06*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 15 Sep, 23:09, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 15, 9:57*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 15 Sep, 21:23, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 15, 5:30*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 15 Sep, 16:45, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: ...if somebody says "I am an anarchist" are they an enemy of the Constitution? How about if anarchists are planning a "protest" in a public library? Should a declaration or planned "protest" like that be grounds for imprisonment? And a military expert like you must *certainly* know that an soldier's or officer's oath is to the Constitution and *not* the government? Not true, read what you quoted below it is to BOTH No, it isn't. Please show me what you are referring to. "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962). "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, " that is an oath, and its an oath to the government, Nope. to obey the orders of the President and officers appointed over you That 'is' the governmnet. No, Clyde, as I said that is an oath to follow the orders of the military chain of command. The President in CinC. And that's the enlisted version of the oath. Look at the officer's version. Do you see anything missing? (Hint: it's what you just quoted.) Don't believe me? Don't believe the quotes I provided in the other post? Look it up then. You're wrong and you're chasing your tail. You've hung around 2pid too long. LoL.- Ascunde citatul - I going th have to repeat this numerous time before you get it. The government is legally constituted by the Constitution, and derives its powers through the Constitution. I you have no allegiance to the legally constituted government, you therefore do not have allegiance to the Constitution, you are just thumbiing your nose at it. That is not a valid argument. Look at it this way to understand why: "If A, then B" "Not B, therefore not A" This is a totally and conclusively invalid form of argument. Go study "Logic 101" to understand why.- Your only argument is that you believe our 'government is Unconstitutional. Nope. You must believe that either the President, COngress *and/or the Supreme Court lack legitimacy. The form or the actual people who temporarily fill the position? I am sworn to defend the form, not the people who fill them. Get it?- I never said otherwise, get it? It's the Constitutional offices you are sworn to, not individuals, I already said that when you posed your monarchy example. Good. Then we can end this. I am not sworn to defend the government, which is composed of people. I'm sworn to defend the form of government as spelled out in the Constitution. So are we done now?- as soon as I say this: You think the government is people. I think the government is institutions. I agree that you are not allegient to people, and that neither you nor I should be allegient to people. |
#60
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So 2pid...
On 17 Sep, 03:09, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: I lookat it as this: 3 a: the office, authority, or function of governing and this: 5 a: the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it b: the complex of political institutions, laws, and customs through which the function of governing is carried out and you look at it as this: 6: the body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization: as a: the officials comprising the governing body of a political unit and constituting the organization as an active agency bcapitalized : the executive branch of the United States federal government ccapitalized : a small group of persons holding simultaneously the principal political executive offices of a nation or other political unit and being responsible for the direction and supervision of public affairs: (1): such a group in a parliamentary system constituted by the cabinet or by the ministry These are people-related. not 3 and 5 yes for 6 Are we done now?- I hope so Are we? |
#61
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So 2pid...
On 17 Sep, 03:09, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: Get it? By not shooting him, you are defending the government. I am disobeying the government. You are disobeying part of it. You are obeying another part of it Here we have a case where the different branches are conflicted. What do you suppose "President, the DOD, the Joint Chiefs, the Supreme Court, or any other constitutionally elected or appointed official, department or government entity" means? For one thing, if the Supreme Court says it is Constitutional, it IS Constitutional. You seem to think the Executive is the sole entity of government. Um, I mentioned two of the three branches of government in my hypothetical example and implied the third (any other constitutionally elected or appointed official, department or government entity). If Congress enacted a law asying you could shoot him, if the DOD or Pres or JC ordered you to, if the Supreme Court had had decided a case favorably, then, yeah, its Constitutional. |
#62
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So 2pid...
On 17 Sep, 03:16, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: On Sep 17, 12:11*am, Clyde Slick wrote: On 17 Sep, 00:07, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 16, 7:36*pm, George M. Middius wrote: militias became the new nation's sole ground army, with the exception of one battery of artillery guarding West Point's arsenal. BTW, the FA is the branch of the military that has the longest record of consecutive service as a result of this. I am not much up on military acronyms. Is FA field artillery? Yes. We're quite proud of the fact that the FA has this unbroken string of service going back to the Revolution. You might find this interesting. I've seen them fire at the Boston Commons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient...llery_Company_... The group's motto is "Acta Non Verba" which is a Latin phrase meaning "Deeds Not Words". their motto is similar to that of the state of Maryland Fatti Maschii Parole Femine Masculine deeds, womanly words |
#63
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So 2pid...
On 17 Sep, 04:18, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: On Sep 16, 11:49*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 16 Sep, 22:33, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 16, 8:40*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: In the US, the President is the President, he is not the embodiment of the government. By swearing allegiance to the Constitution, one is swearing allegiance [to] our forms (sic) of government I'll agree with this, but this is not the same as "swearing allegiance to the government". Your argument about swearing allegiance to the government is incorrect. As Stephen points out, the government can act unconstitutionally. Part of the government can,but not for long. The separation of powers allows the other parts to correct that. An act that you might think is unconstitutional is not so, until and unless the Supreme Court rules it so, or the Congress and the states amend the Constitutiion. As Wiki points out, military officers are sworn to disobey unconstitutional orders, which is why officers do not swear to obey every order they receive in the Officer's Oath of Office. Your argument is "If one has sworn to allegiance to, and to defend, the Constitution, one must also swear to allegiance to, and to defend, the government. I never said you 'must' do it, I said you 'have done' it, by swearing allegiance to the Constitution, one is swearing allegiance to the government. One is swearing to defend the FORM of government, not the government. Clyde, you are wrong. Period. The Constitution is the foundation and walls of the government. What the Constitution is all about 'IS' the giovernment The Constitution is all about the FORM of government. There is a difference between "government" and "form (or system) of government". Our form of government is a representative republic, or representative democracy, as spelled out in the Constitution. A government is "the organization, that is the governing authority of a political unit,"[1] "the ruling power in a political society,"[2] and the apparatus through which a governing body functions and exercises authority.[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governm..._of_government A form of government is a term that refers to the set of political institutions by which a government of a state is organized in order to exert its powers over a Community politics.[1] Synonyms include "regime type" and "system of government". This definition holds valid even if the government is unsuccessful in exerting its power. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forms_of_government Government equals "people in power" or "political entities in power". I am not sworn to defend them. Form of government equals "the type or system of government", not the government itself. I am sworn to defend the system of government spelled out in the Constitution. If you are confusing these two terms and calling them identical, and if you mean "form of government" when you say "government", then we agree. If not, then we don't. the Institution of government not the people who hold office, but the offices themselves. |
#64
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So 2pid...
On 17 Sep, 05:48, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article , *Clyde Slick wrote: On 16 Sep, 22:02, MiNe 109 * wrote: In article , *Clyde Slick wrote: On 16 Sep, 21:30, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 16, 7:36*pm, George M. Middius wrote: Shhhh! said: ł I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of...#Military_Oath Can you understand why our founding fathers might not have wanted to have our military do the same? ;-) The loyalty oath dates back to the 1770s? We were barely even a country then. "The Continental Army was created on June 14, 1775 by the Continental Congress as a unified army for the states to fight Great Britain, with George Washington appointed as its commander. [...] After the war, though, the Continental Army was quickly disbanded as part of the Americans' distrust of standing armies, and irregular state militias became the new nation's sole ground army, with the exception of one battery of artillery guarding West Point's arsenal. However, because of continuing conflict with Native Americans, it was soon realized that it was necessary to field a trained standing army. The first of these, the Legion of the United States, was established in 1791." That's also from wikipedia. As is this: One notable difference between the officer and enlisted oaths is that the oath taken by officers does not include any provision to obey orders; while enlisted personnel are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey lawful orders, officers in the service of the United States are bound by this oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States. and Note also that this is not an oath to defend any specific territory or persons or property. This is an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. I agree with you on that. I never said it was to defend any particular territory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...rvices_Oath_of... I wonder how long Clyde will continue his ridiculous argument. LoL.- Yeah, the Government is the embodiment of our Constitution. The whole damn purpose of the Constitution is to empower and legitimize our government. So, when you swear allegiance to the Constitution, your are swearkng allegiance to the government. That is the whole point of'the Constitution, to make our government. You cannot swear allegiance to the Constitution without swearing allegiance to the government. the Constitution is absolutely meaningless without our government. *If you ahve no allegiance to the government, you just can't have any allegiance to the Constitution. UNLESS you want to argue that the government we have is not the same government as prescribed by the Constitution. Do you want to go there? Since the government can act un-Constitutionally, your argument fails.. Stephen- It really can't, at least not for very long. You do know what function the Supreme Court has, don't you? You do know it is part of our government, don't you? you do know what Congress does, don't you? You do know that Congress is part of the government, don't you? You do know what the balance of power and the separation of the htree branches of government are, don't you? Epic fail. too bad you should have studied harder on civics class. |
#65
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So 2pid...
Clyde Slick said: but I have allegiance to the institution of Congress and to the Office of the Speaker of the House, the position which[sic] she presently holds.. Why do you have this allegiance? Are you a federal employee now? Duh, I am a citizen. duh, so am I, and I don't have any such allegiance. You're drunk again, aren't you? |
#66
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So 2pid...
In article
, Clyde Slick wrote: On 17 Sep, 05:48, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , *Clyde Slick wrote: On 16 Sep, 22:02, MiNe 109 * wrote: In article , *Clyde Slick wrote: On 16 Sep, 21:30, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 16, 7:36*pm, George M. Middius wrote: Shhhh! said: ł I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of...#Military_Oath Can you understand why our founding fathers might not have wanted to have our military do the same? ;-) The loyalty oath dates back to the 1770s? We were barely even a country then. "The Continental Army was created on June 14, 1775 by the Continental Congress as a unified army for the states to fight Great Britain, with George Washington appointed as its commander. [...] After the war, though, the Continental Army was quickly disbanded as part of the Americans' distrust of standing armies, and irregular state militias became the new nation's sole ground army, with the exception of one battery of artillery guarding West Point's arsenal. However, because of continuing conflict with Native Americans, it was soon realized that it was necessary to field a trained standing army. The first of these, the Legion of the United States, was established in 1791." That's also from wikipedia. As is this: One notable difference between the officer and enlisted oaths is that the oath taken by officers does not include any provision to obey orders; while enlisted personnel are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey lawful orders, officers in the service of the United States are bound by this oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States. and Note also that this is not an oath to defend any specific territory or persons or property. This is an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. I agree with you on that. I never said it was to defend any particular territory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...rvices_Oath_of ... I wonder how long Clyde will continue his ridiculous argument. LoL.- Yeah, the Government is the embodiment of our Constitution. The whole damn purpose of the Constitution is to empower and legitimize our government. So, when you swear allegiance to the Constitution, your are swearkng allegiance to the government. That is the whole point of'the Constitution, to make our government. You cannot swear allegiance to the Constitution without swearing allegiance to the government. the Constitution is absolutely meaningless without our government. *If you ahve no allegiance to the government, you just can't have any allegiance to the Constitution. UNLESS you want to argue that the government we have is not the same government as prescribed by the Constitution. Do you want to go there? Since the government can act un-Constitutionally, your argument fails. Stephen- It really can't, at least not for very long. You do know what function the Supreme Court has, don't you? You do know it is part of our government, don't you? you do know what Congress does, don't you? You do know that Congress is part of the government, don't you? You do know what the balance of power and the separation of the htree branches of government are, don't you? Epic fail. too bad you should have studied harder on civics class. Didja see the thing about conservatives who just dig in harder after being shown they're wrong? Stpehen |
#67
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So 2pid...
George M. Middius wrote...
duh, so am I, and I don't have any such allegiance. You're drunk again, aren't you? But George,when you were young, did you not do as Mary Chapin Carpenter sings in 'Stones In The Road'? "When we were young, we pledged allegiance every morning of our lives The classroom rang with children's voices under teacher's watchful eye We learned about the world around us at our desks and at dinnertime Reminded of the starving children, we cleaned our plates with guilty minds" -- Ken http://www.members.lycos.co.uk/buddyduck/ |
#68
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So 2pid...
UnsteadyKen said: duh, so am I, and I don't have any such allegiance. You're drunk again, aren't you? But George,when you were young, did you not do as Mary Chapin Carpenter sings in 'Stones In The Road'? "When we were young, we pledged allegiance every morning of our lives The classroom rang with children's voices under teacher's watchful eye We learned about the world around us at our desks and at dinnertime Reminded of the starving children, we cleaned our plates with guilty minds" blecch! |
#69
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So 2pid...
On Sep 17, 10:28*am, George M. Middius
wrote: Clyde Slick said: but I have allegiance to the institution of Congress and to the Office of the Speaker of the House, the position which[sic] she presently holds.. Why do you have this allegiance? Are you a federal employee now? Duh, I am a citizen. duh, so am I, and I don't have any such allegiance. You're drunk again, aren't you? that's your problem Maybe you'll feel better about your allegiances after the commissars take control. |
#70
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So 2pid...
Clyde Slick said: but I have allegiance to the institution of Congress and to the Office of the Speaker of the House, the position which[sic] she presently holds.. Why do you have this allegiance? Are you a federal employee now? Duh, I am a citizen. duh, so am I, and I don't have any such allegiance. You're drunk again, aren't you? that's your problem Maybe you'll feel better about your allegiances after the commissars take control. Yep, drunk. Or maybe unhinged. What have you done with Scottie? |
#71
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So 2pid...
On Sep 17, 8:55*am, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 17 Sep, 02:56, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 17, 12:07*am, Clyde Slick wrote: On 16 Sep, 22:57, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 16, 8:30*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 16 Sep, 19:18, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 16, 5:06*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 15 Sep, 23:09, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 15, 9:57*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 15 Sep, 21:23, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 15, 5:30*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 15 Sep, 16:45, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: ...if somebody says "I am an anarchist" are they an enemy of the Constitution? How about if anarchists are planning a "protest" in a public library? Should a declaration or planned "protest" like that be grounds for imprisonment? And a military expert like you must *certainly* know that an soldier's or officer's oath is to the Constitution and *not* the government? Not true, read what you quoted below it is to BOTH No, it isn't. Please show me what you are referring to. "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962). "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, " that is an oath, and its an oath to the government, Nope. to obey the orders of the President and officers appointed over you That 'is' the governmnet. No, Clyde, as I said that is an oath to follow the orders of the military chain of command. The President in CinC. And that's the enlisted version of the oath. Look at the officer's version.. Do you see anything missing? (Hint: it's what you just quoted.) Don't believe me? Don't believe the quotes I provided in the other post? Look it up then. You're wrong and you're chasing your tail. You've hung around 2pid too long. LoL.- Ascunde citatul - I going th have to repeat this numerous time before you get it. |
#72
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So 2pid...
In article
, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: I'll agree with Lincoln. Sorry! Dang. I thought the matter had dropped out of respect for Constitution Day. Stephen |
#73
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So 2pid...
On Sep 17, 9:06*am, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 17 Sep, 03:09, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to wrote: Get it? By not shooting him, you are defending the government. I am disobeying the government. *You are disobeying part of it. You are obeying another part of it Here we have a case where the different branches are conflicted. You have just shot your own argument in the foot. Clearly an oath to the Constitution takes precedence over any oath to the government, even given your usage of the word. What do you suppose "President, the DOD, the Joint Chiefs, the Supreme Court, or any other constitutionally elected or appointed official, department or government entity" means? For one thing, if the Supreme Court says it is Constitutional, it IS Constitutional. So if the Supreme Court said shooting prisoners without charges or without a trial was constitutional, it would be. Keep in mind, Clyde, that the Supreme Court is as political as any other branch of government. Look at FDR and bushie stuffing it with people who have the same ideology as theirs. That's why the battles over appointments are so vicious. And as Stephen brought up, look at the DOJ. Which is why the officer's oath is not to the government, but to the form of government as spelled out in the Constitution. You seem to think the Executive is the sole entity of government. Um, I mentioned two of the three branches of government in my hypothetical example and implied the third (any other constitutionally elected or appointed official, department or government entity). If Congress enacted a law asying you could shoot him, if the DOD or Pres or JC ordered you to, if the Supreme Court had had decided a case favorably, then, yeah, its Constitutional. No it isn't. I still wouldn't do it. That's no different than saying "I was just following orders" at Nuremburg. And that's why the oath is to the Constitution, not to the government. If I did that I would be a criminal. With your logic there are no war criminals. A dictator like Saddam was not a bad guy after all and his soldiers are hereby absolved of any crimes, as none were committed. |
#74
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So 2pid...
On 18 Sep, 13:27, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: On Sep 17, 8:55*am, Clyde Slick wrote: I swore to defend the Supreme Law of the land. *In that Supreme Law there is a form of government specified. I swore to defend that form of government by swearing to defend the Constitution. The government itself *is* people. "...that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." of the people, it belongs to us by the people, our forefathers devised it, we the people choose its leadership for the poeple, it is to serve our needs. http://showcase.netins.net/web/creat...gettysburg.htm Abraham Lincoln acknowledged that court opinions were binding upon the specific parties involved and "entitled to very high respect and consideration...by all other departments of the government." departments of the governmet are entities, not people. But like the Founding Fathers, he utterly rejected the myth that judges' opinions are the law of the land: I am sure you will argue that they are the law of the land, in those instances that you wish them to be. Maybe, such as Roe vs Wade. |
#75
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So 2pid...
On 18 Sep, 13:37, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: On Sep 17, 9:06*am, Clyde Slick wrote: On 17 Sep, 03:09, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to wrote: Get it? By not shooting him, you are defending the government. I am disobeying the government. *You are disobeying part of it. You are obeying another part of it Here we have a case where the different branches are conflicted. You have just shot your own argument in the foot. Clearly an oath to the Constitution takes precedence over any oath to the government, even given your usage of the word. What do you suppose "President, the DOD, the Joint Chiefs, the Supreme Court, or any other constitutionally elected or appointed official, department or government entity" means? For one thing, if the Supreme Court says it is Constitutional, it IS Constitutional. So if the Supreme Court said shooting prisoners without charges or without a trial was constitutional, it would be. Keep in mind, Clyde, that the Supreme Court is as political as any other branch of government. Look at FDR and bushie stuffing it with people who have the same ideology as theirs. That's why the battles over appointments are so vicious. And as Stephen brought up, look at the DOJ. Which is why the officer's oath is not to the government, but to the form of government as spelled out in the Constitution. You seem to think the Executive is the sole entity of government. Um, I mentioned two of the three branches of government in my hypothetical example and implied the third (any other constitutionally elected or appointed official, department or government entity). If Congress enacted a law asying you could shoot him, if the DOD or Pres or JC ordered you to, if the Supreme Court had had decided a case favorably, then, yeah, its Constitutional. No it isn't. I still wouldn't do it. That's no different than saying "I was just following orders" at Nuremburg. And that's why the oath is to the Constitution, not to the government. If I did that I would be a criminal. With your logic there are no war criminals. A dictator like Saddam was not a bad guy after all and his soldiers are hereby absolved of any crimes, as none were committed. Being that your definition of government is different than the one I use, this is just pointless. |
#76
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So 2pid...
On Sep 18, 8:36*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 18 Sep, 13:27, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 17, 8:55*am, Clyde Slick wrote: I swore to defend the Supreme Law of the land. *In that Supreme Law there is a form of government specified. I swore to defend that form of government by swearing to defend the Constitution. The government itself *is* people. "...that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." of the people, it belongs to us by the people, our forefathers devised it, we the people choose its leadership for the poeple, it is to serve our needs. Perfect. "we the people choose its leadership". You've just admitted that the government is people. So we agree after all. http://showcase.netins.net/web/creat...gettysburg.htm Abraham Lincoln acknowledged that court opinions were binding upon the specific parties involved and "entitled to very high respect and consideration...by all other departments of the government." departments of the governmet are entities, not people. How does a department give something "very high respect and consideration"? An army division is an entity comprised of people. So are government departments. So is what you have been saying all this time that you think I took an oath to an empty shell of an entity? That I swore an oath to the Department of Justice, but not to the people that make up that department? I give up. Clyde: you win. *But like the Founding Fathers, he utterly rejected the myth that judges' opinions are the law of the land: I am sure you will argue that they are the law of the land, in those instances that you wish them to be. Maybe, such as Roe vs Wade. That wasn't the point. The point was the usage of the word "government". Nobody that I'm aware of uses it like you do. It's been fun watching you chase your tail. |
#77
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So 2pid...
On Sep 18, 8:38*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
Being that your definition of government is different than the one I use, this is just pointless. As I said, you win. My oath is to a bunch of empty "entities". |
#78
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So 2pid...
On 19 Sep, 11:54, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: On Sep 18, 8:36*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 18 Sep, 13:27, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Sep 17, 8:55*am, Clyde Slick wrote: I swore to defend the Supreme Law of the land. *In that Supreme Law there is a form of government specified. I swore to defend that form of government by swearing to defend the Constitution. The government itself *is* people. "...that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." of the people, it belongs to us by the people, our forefathers devised it, we the people choose its leadership for the poeple, it is to serve our needs. Perfect. "we the people choose its leadership". You've just admitted that the government is people. So we agree after all. http://showcase.netins.net/web/creat...gettysburg.htm Abraham Lincoln acknowledged that court opinions were binding upon the specific parties involved and "entitled to very high respect and consideration...by all other departments of the government." departments of the governmet are entities, not people. How does a department give something "very high respect and consideration"? An army division is an entity comprised of people. So are government departments. So is what you have been saying all this time that you think I took an oath to an empty shell of an entity? That I swore an oath to the Department of Justice, but not to the people that make up that department? I give up. Clyde: you win. *But like the Founding Fathers, he utterly rejected the myth that judges' opinions are the law of the land: I am sure you will argue that they are the law of the land, in those instances that you wish them to be. Maybe, such as Roe vs Wade. That wasn't the point. The point was the usage of the word "government". Nobody that I'm aware of uses it like you do. It's been fun watching you chase your tail.- Ascunde citatul - - Afișare text în citat - |
#79
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So 2pid...
On 19 Sep, 11:54, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: On Sep 18, 8:36*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: of the people, it belongs to us by the people, our forefathers devised it, we the people choose its leadership for the poeple, it is to serve our needs. Perfect. "we the people choose its leadership". You've just admitted that the government is people. Its leaders are people. We are talking about the US Government, its the same governmemt today as it was under Clinton, Bush 41, Reagan Carter, etc. It is an "entity" So we agree after all. Nope! http://showcase.netins.net/web/creat...gettysburg.htm Abraham Lincoln acknowledged that court opinions were binding upon the specific parties involved and "entitled to very high respect and consideration...by all other departments of the government." departments of the governmet are entities, not people. How does a department give something "very high respect and consideration"? An army division is an entity comprised of people. So are government departments. So is what you have been saying all this time that you think I took an oath to an empty shell of an entity? That I swore an oath to the Department of Justice, but not to the people that make up that department? yep! you got it |
#80
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
So 2pid...
On 19 Sep, 13:20, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: On Sep 18, 8:38*pm, Clyde Slick wrote: Being that your definition of government is different than the one I use, this is just pointless. As I said, you win. My oath is to a bunch of empty "entities". that you think they are empty, that's your problem. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
2pid, I really want to know | Audio Opinions | |||
OK, 2pid... | Audio Opinions | |||
2pid... | Audio Opinions | |||
Say, 2pid, have you seen this? | Audio Opinions |