So 2pid...

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

....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? So
according to you I am somehow not living up to my oath because I
"allow" anarchists to plan "protests"? Exactly how, imbecile? LOL!

Here, let's have you read it:

The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for
commissioned officers are as follows:

"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, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the
United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly
swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of
the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I
will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this
obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of
evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of
the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form
71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm

[Clyde Slick]

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

>
> Here, let's have you read it:
>
> The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for
> commissioned officers are as follows:
>
> "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, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the
> United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly
> swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of
> the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I
> will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this
> obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of
> evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of
> the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form
> 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
>
> http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

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 will support and defend the Constitution of the United States
against all enemies, foreign or domestic,.. that I will bear true
faith and allegiance to the same;"

I will support, defend and bear true faith and allegiance to the
Constitution of the United States. Period. Nothing to do with
government is stated. And that is, BTW, intentional. The enlisted
version (the first one) simply states (if you are referring to the
part about the President of the United States) they swear that they
will follow the orders of the military chain of command.

> > Here, let's have you read it:
>
> > The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for
> > commissioned officers are as follows:
>
> > "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, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the
> > United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly
> > swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of
> > the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I
> > will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this
> > obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of
> > evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of
> > the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form
> > 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
>
> >http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm-

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

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

Cheney Misstates Military Oath


David R. Henderson
Am I the only one who noticed? I hope not. But just in case, let me
note that Vice President Dick Cheney made a huge misstatement to his
West Point audience on May 26. I hope that, at a minimum, the West
Point history majors noticed it. Near the end of his speech at the
United States Military Academy commencement, Mr. Cheney stated:

"On your first day of Army life, each one of you raised your right
hand and took an oath. And you will swear again today to defend the
United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That is your
vow, that is the business you're in."

Well, not quite. Here is the actual oath that newly minted officers in
the U.S. Army take:

"I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S.
Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such
appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully
discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so
help me God."

Notice the difference? Mr. Cheney claims that U.S. Army officers vow
to defend the United States, but as the oath quoted above shows, they
don't. Instead, they vow to defend the U.S. Constitution. As a former
student of mine, an officer in the U.S. military, said, "Professor,
isn't it interesting that our highest obligation is not to protect the
United States but, instead, is to protect the U.S. Constitution?" Yes,
it is interesting.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5946127/

And a note from the far right-wing whackos:

The election of Bill Clinton in 1992 changed everything for those who
swore the oath, but who were stuck serving under a man who candidly
"loathed" the military's disciplines and, unavoidably, its middle-
class conservatism. Clinton's eight-year politicization of the
military caused a renaissance of officer resistance against popular
liberal agendas that were inherently at odds with military service.
Keeping in mind their oath, which, by its very language specifies
obligations to the Constitution and not necessarily to the sitting
president, officers either ignored Clinton's directives or vocally
confronted the damaging effect of his enduring loathing of the
military.

[i.e. Who's "politicizing" the military here? I am not aware of
anybody who "ignored Clinton's directives or vocally confronted the
damaging effect of his enduring loathing of the military. I didn't
even do that regarding bushie. But I see here the strain of your "you
couldn't have served because you don't exemplify what us right-wing
whackos perceive to be attitudes consistant with military service."
Right-wing whackos are cwazy, LOL!]

http://www.gopusa.com/opinion/re_1230.shtml

No, Clyde, we swear an oath to the Constitution.

[Clyde Slick]

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,
to obey the orders of the President and officers appointed over you
That 'is' the governmnet.

[Clyde Slick]

On 15 Sep, 21:49, "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:[i]
> > > ...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
>
> Cheney Misstates Military Oath
>
> David R. Henderson
> Am I the only one who noticed? I hope not. But just in case, let me
> note that Vice President Dick Cheney made a huge misstatement to his
> West Point audience on May 26. I hope that, at a minimum, the West
> Point history majors noticed it. Near the end of his speech at the
> United States Military Academy commencement, Mr. Cheney stated:
>
> "On your first day of Army life, each one of you raised your right
> hand and took an oath. And you will swear again today to defend the
> United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That is your
> vow, that is the business you're in."
>
> Well, not quite. Here is the actual oath that newly minted officers in
> the U.S. Army take:
>
> "I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S.
> Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such
> appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
> defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
> foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
> the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental
> reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully
> discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so
> help me God."
>
> Notice the difference? Mr. Cheney claims that U.S. Army officers vow
> to defend the United States, but as the oath quoted above shows, they
> don't. Instead, they vow to defend the U.S. Constitution. As a former
> student of mine, an officer in the U.S. military, said, "Professor,
> isn't it interesting that our highest obligation is not to protect the
> United States but, instead, is to protect the U.S. Constitution?" Yes,
> it is interesting.
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5946127/
>
> And a note from the far right-wing whackos:
>
> The election of Bill Clinton in 1992 changed everything for those who
> swore the oath, but who were stuck serving under a man who candidly
> "loathed" the military's disciplines and, unavoidably, its middle-
> class conservatism. Clinton's eight-year politicization of the
> military caused a renaissance of officer resistance against popular
> liberal agendas that were inherently at odds with military service.
> Keeping in mind their oath, which, by its very language specifies
> obligations to the Constitution and not necessarily to the sitting
> president, officers either ignored Clinton's directives or vocally
> confronted the damaging effect of his enduring loathing of the
> military.
>
>
>
> http://www.gopusa.com/opinion/re_1230.shtml
>
> No, Clyde, we swear an oath to the Constitution.

that 'is' the United States.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

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.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 15, 9:59*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 15 Sep, 21:49, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Sep 15, 5:30*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>[i]
> > > 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
>
> > Cheney Misstates Military Oath
>
> > David R. Henderson
> > Am I the only one who noticed? I hope not. But just in case, let me
> > note that Vice President Dick Cheney made a huge misstatement to his
> > West Point audience on May 26. I hope that, at a minimum, the West
> > Point history majors noticed it. Near the end of his speech at the
> > United States Military Academy commencement, Mr. Cheney stated:
>
> > "On your first day of Army life, each one of you raised your right
> > hand and took an oath. And you will swear again today to defend the
> > United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That is your
> > vow, that is the business you're in."
>
> > Well, not quite. Here is the actual oath that newly minted officers in
> > the U.S. Army take:
>
> > "I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S.
> > Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such
> > appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
> > defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
> > foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
> > the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental
> > reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully
> > discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so
> > help me God."
>
> > Notice the difference? Mr. Cheney claims that U.S. Army officers vow
> > to defend the United States, but as the oath quoted above shows, they
> > don't. Instead, they vow to defend the U.S. Constitution. As a former
> > student of mine, an officer in the U.S. military, said, "Professor,
> > isn't it interesting that our highest obligation is not to protect the
> > United States but, instead, is to protect the U.S. Constitution?" Yes,
> > it is interesting.
>
> >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5946127/
>
> > And a note from the far right-wing whackos:
>
> > The election of Bill Clinton in 1992 changed everything for those who
> > swore the oath, but who were stuck serving under a man who candidly
> > "loathed" the military's disciplines and, unavoidably, its middle-
> > class conservatism. Clinton's eight-year politicization of the
> > military caused a renaissance of officer resistance against popular
> > liberal agendas that were inherently at odds with military service.
> > Keeping in mind their oath, which, by its very language specifies
> > obligations to the Constitution and not necessarily to the sitting
> > president, officers either ignored Clinton's directives or vocally
> > confronted the damaging effect of his enduring loathing of the
> > military.
>
> >
>
> >http://www.gopusa.com/opinion/re_1230.shtml
>
> > No, Clyde, we swear an oath to the Constitution.
>
> that 'is' the United States.

Quibbling noted. It is not an oath to defend the US. It is not an oath
to defend the government or the people of the US. It *is* an oath to
defend the Constitution of the US.

The Constitution is not the US. The Constitution is what the US is
based on.

[Clyde Slick]

On 15 Sep, 23:13, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Sep 15, 9:59*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 15 Sep, 21:49, "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
>
> > > Cheney Misstates Military Oath
>
> > > David R. Henderson
> > > Am I the only one who noticed? I hope not. But just in case, let me
> > > note that Vice President Dick Cheney made a huge misstatement to his
> > > West Point audience on May 26. I hope that, at a minimum, the West
> > > Point history majors noticed it. Near the end of his speech at the
> > > United States Military Academy commencement, Mr. Cheney stated:
>
> > > "On your first day of Army life, each one of you raised your right
> > > hand and took an oath. And you will swear again today to defend the
> > > United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That is your
> > > vow, that is the business you're in."
>
> > > Well, not quite. Here is the actual oath that newly minted officers in
> > > the U.S. Army take:
>
> > > "I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S.
> > > Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such
> > > appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
> > > defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
> > > foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
> > > the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental
> > > reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully
> > > discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so
> > > help me God."
>
> > > Notice the difference? Mr. Cheney claims that U.S. Army officers vow
> > > to defend the United States, but as the oath quoted above shows, they
> > > don't. Instead, they vow to defend the U.S. Constitution. As a former
> > > student of mine, an officer in the U.S. military, said, "Professor,
> > > isn't it interesting that our highest obligation is not to protect the
> > > United States but, instead, is to protect the U.S. Constitution?" Yes,
> > > it is interesting.
>
> > >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5946127/
>
> > > And a note from the far right-wing whackos:
>
> > > The election of Bill Clinton in 1992 changed everything for those who
> > > swore the oath, but who were stuck serving under a man who candidly
> > > "loathed" the military's disciplines and, unavoidably, its middle-
> > > class conservatism. Clinton's eight-year politicization of the
> > > military caused a renaissance of officer resistance against popular
> > > liberal agendas that were inherently at odds with military service.
> > > Keeping in mind their oath, which, by its very language specifies
> > > obligations to the Constitution and not necessarily to the sitting
> > > president, officers either ignored Clinton's directives or vocally
> > > confronted the damaging effect of his enduring loathing of the
> > > military.
>
> > > [i.e. Who's "politicizing" the military here? I am not aware of
> > > anybody who "ignored Clinton's directives or vocally confronted the
> > > damaging effect of his enduring loathing of the military. I didn't
> > > even do that regarding bushie. But I see here the strain of your "you
> > > couldn't have served because you don't exemplify what us right-wing
> > > whackos perceive to be attitudes consistant with military service."
> > > Right-wing whackos are cwazy, LOL!]
>
> > >http://www.gopusa.com/opinion/re_1230.shtml
>
> > > No, Clyde, we swear an oath to the Constitution.
>
> > that 'is' the United States.
>
> Quibbling noted. It is not an oath to defend the US. It is not an oath
> to defend the government or the people of the US. It *is* an oath to
> defend the Constitution of the US.
>
> The Constitution is not the US. The Constitution is what the US is
> based on.- Ascunde citatul -
>
>

The Constitution is the authority of
the governement. It embodies the Legislature, the
Executive, the Courts, and their responsibilities
and their powers. Allegiance to the
Constitution is allegiance to the government.
The basic purpose of the Constitution is
to organize and empower our government.
Allegiance to the Constitution is allegiance
to what the Constitutiion says and to what it allows,
that is, primarily, our government.

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
Clyde Slick > wrote:

> > The Constitution is not the US. The Constitution is what the US is
> > based on.- Ascunde citatul -
> >
> >
>
> The Constitution is the authority of
> the governement. It embodies the Legislature, the
> Executive, the Courts, and their responsibilities
> and their powers. Allegiance to the
> Constitution is allegiance to the government.
> The basic purpose of the Constitution is
> to organize and empower our government.
> Allegiance to the Constitution is allegiance
> to what the Constitutiion says and to what it allows,
> that is, primarily, our government.

Nice try. You're saying the Constitution serves the government.

The trouble with that is what happens when the Constitution stands in
the way of something the government wants to do.

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 16, 6:41*am, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > The Constitution is not the US. The Constitution is what the US is
> > > based on.
>
> > The Constitution is the authority of
> > the governement. It embodies the Legislature, the
> > Executive, the Courts, and their responsibilities
> > and their powers. Allegiance to the
> > Constitution is allegiance to the government.
> > The basic purpose of the Constitution is
> > to organize and empower our government.
> > Allegiance to the Constitution is allegiance
> > to what the Constitutiion says and to what it allows,
> > that is, primarily, our government.
>
> Nice try. You're saying the Constitution serves the government.
>
> The trouble with that is what happens when the Constitution stands in
> the way of something the government wants to do.

Clyde's argument is amazingly 2pid-like.

Clyde, if you want to insist that swearing to defend the Constitution
is tantamount to swearing to defend a particular administration, you
go girl. The scholars and military professionals who study such things
disagree. I trust them more than you and your beer-addled reasoning.

[Clyde Slick]

On 15 Sep, 23:13, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Sep 15, 9:59*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 15 Sep, 21:49, "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
>
> > > Cheney Misstates Military Oath
>
> > > David R. Henderson
> > > Am I the only one who noticed? I hope not. But just in case, let me
> > > note that Vice President Dick Cheney made a huge misstatement to his
> > > West Point audience on May 26. I hope that, at a minimum, the West
> > > Point history majors noticed it. Near the end of his speech at the
> > > United States Military Academy commencement, Mr. Cheney stated:
>
> > > "On your first day of Army life, each one of you raised your right
> > > hand and took an oath. And you will swear again today to defend the
> > > United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That is your
> > > vow, that is the business you're in."
>
> > > Well, not quite. Here is the actual oath that newly minted officers in
> > > the U.S. Army take:
>
> > > "I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S.
> > > Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such
> > > appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
> > > defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
> > > foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
> > > the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental
> > > reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully
> > > discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so
> > > help me God."
>
> > > Notice the difference? Mr. Cheney claims that U.S. Army officers vow
> > > to defend the United States, but as the oath quoted above shows, they
> > > don't. Instead, they vow to defend the U.S. Constitution. As a former
> > > student of mine, an officer in the U.S. military, said, "Professor,
> > > isn't it interesting that our highest obligation is not to protect the
> > > United States but, instead, is to protect the U.S. Constitution?" Yes,
> > > it is interesting.
>
> > >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5946127/
>
> > > And a note from the far right-wing whackos:
>
> > > The election of Bill Clinton in 1992 changed everything for those who
> > > swore the oath, but who were stuck serving under a man who candidly
> > > "loathed" the military's disciplines and, unavoidably, its middle-
> > > class conservatism. Clinton's eight-year politicization of the
> > > military caused a renaissance of officer resistance against popular
> > > liberal agendas that were inherently at odds with military service.
> > > Keeping in mind their oath, which, by its very language specifies
> > > obligations to the Constitution and not necessarily to the sitting
> > > president, officers either ignored Clinton's directives or vocally
> > > confronted the damaging effect of his enduring loathing of the
> > > military.
>
> > > [i.e. Who's "politicizing" the military here? I am not aware of
> > > anybody who "ignored Clinton's directives or vocally confronted the
> > > damaging effect of his enduring loathing of the military. I didn't
> > > even do that regarding bushie. But I see here the strain of your "you
> > > couldn't have served because you don't exemplify what us right-wing
> > > whackos perceive to be attitudes consistant with military service."
> > > Right-wing whackos are cwazy, LOL!]
>
> > >http://www.gopusa.com/opinion/re_1230.shtml
>
> > > No, Clyde, we swear an oath to the Constitution.
>
> > that 'is' the United States.
>
> Quibbling noted. It is not an oath to defend the US. It is not an oath
> to defend the government or the people of the US. It *is* an oath to
> defend the Constitution of the US.
>
> The Constitution is not the US. The Constitution is what the US is
> based on.-

the Constitution empowers the government, if you have no allegiance to
the
government of the US, you have no allegieance to'the Constitution that
empowered it, you are
just thumbing your nose at it. By refusing
allegiance to the government, you are saying the Constitution is
worthless in its main purpiose, which is to give power and legitamicy
to the government.
I really don't care whether or not you'have allegiance to the
government,
but just don't honk on about having allegiamne to'the Constitutiion,
you don't.


I don't throw off my allegiance when we have a President I might
not happen to like, say, such as Clinton. During Clinton's
tenure, I was still allegiant to the government and to
his Presidency. I didn't have to like him, or his policies,
but I was allegiant to the government that he was President of.

[Clyde Slick]

On 16 Sep, 07:41, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > The Constitution is not the US. The Constitution is what the US is
> > > based on.- Ascunde citatul -
>
> > The Constitution is the authority of
> > the governement. It embodies the Legislature, the
> > Executive, the Courts, and their responsibilities
> > and their powers. Allegiance to the
> > Constitution is allegiance to the government.
> > The basic purpose of the Constitution is
> > to organize and empower our government.
> > Allegiance to the Constitution is allegiance
> > to what the Constitutiion says and to what it allows,
> > that is, primarily, our government.
>
> Nice try. You're saying the Constitution serves the government.
>

No, it enables it and legitimizes it.


> The trouble with that is what happens when the Constitution stands in
> the way of something the government wants to do.
>


What happens is that the Supreme Court steps in.
Last time I looked, that was part of our government.

[Clyde Slick]

On 16 Sep, 16:14, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Sep 16, 6:41*am, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > >,
> > *Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > The Constitution is not the US. The Constitution is what the US is
> > > > based on.
>
> > > The Constitution is the authority of
> > > the governement. It embodies the Legislature, the
> > > Executive, the Courts, and their responsibilities
> > > and their powers. Allegiance to the
> > > Constitution is allegiance to the government.
> > > The basic purpose of the Constitution is
> > > to organize and empower our government.
> > > Allegiance to the Constitution is allegiance
> > > to what the Constitutiion says and to what it allows,
> > > that is, primarily, our government.
>
> > Nice try. You're saying the Constitution serves the government.
>
> > The trouble with that is what happens when the Constitution stands in
> > the way of something the government wants to do.
>
> Clyde's argument is amazingly 2pid-like.
>
> Clyde, if you want to insist that swearing to defend the Constitution
> is tantamount to swearing to defend a particular administration, you
> go girl.


If the administration's actions are within the scope
of Constitutional empowerment, then it is
the government taking such action. If you
are not allegiant to the government taking
Constitutionally legal actions, than you are not allegiant to the
Constitution.

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.

[Clyde Slick]

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.

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
Clyde Slick > wrote:

> On 16 Sep, 07:41, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> > *Clyde Slick > wrote:
> >
> > > > The Constitution is not the US. The Constitution is what the US is
> > > > based on.- Ascunde citatul -
> >
> > > The Constitution is the authority of
> > > the governement. It embodies the Legislature, the
> > > Executive, the Courts, and their responsibilities
> > > and their powers. Allegiance to the
> > > Constitution is allegiance to the government.
> > > The basic purpose of the Constitution is
> > > to organize and empower our government.
> > > Allegiance to the Constitution is allegiance
> > > to what the Constitutiion says and to what it allows,
> > > that is, primarily, our government.
> >
> > Nice try. You're saying the Constitution serves the government.
> >
>
> No, it enables it and legitimizes it.

But it is not the government itself.

> > The trouble with that is what happens when the Constitution stands in
> > the way of something the government wants to do.
> >
>
>
> What happens is that the Supreme Court steps in.

Except when it doesn't.

> Last time I looked, that was part of our government.

Does the military swear alliegence to the Supreme Court?

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

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.

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

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.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 16, 5:05*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 16 Sep, 16:14, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Sep 16, 6:41*am, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
> > > In article
> > > >,
> > > *Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > The Constitution is not the US. The Constitution is what the US is
> > > > > based on.
>
> > > > The Constitution is the authority of
> > > > the governement. It embodies the Legislature, the
> > > > Executive, the Courts, and their responsibilities
> > > > and their powers. Allegiance to the
> > > > Constitution is allegiance to the government.
> > > > The basic purpose of the Constitution is
> > > > to organize and empower our government.
> > > > Allegiance to the Constitution is allegiance
> > > > to what the Constitutiion says and to what it allows,
> > > > that is, primarily, our government.
>
> > > Nice try. You're saying the Constitution serves the government.
>
> > > The trouble with that is what happens when the Constitution stands in
> > > the way of something the government wants to do.
>
> > Clyde's argument is amazingly 2pid-like.
>
> > Clyde, if you want to insist that swearing to defend the Constitution
> > is tantamount to swearing to defend a particular administration, you
> > go girl.
>
> If the administration's actions are within the scope
> of Constitutional empowerment, then it is
> the government taking such action. If you
> are not allegiant to the government taking
> Constitutionally legal actions, than you are not allegiant to the
> Constitution.

Clyde, don't take my word for it. Go ask people you trust, and who you
are sure that served. ;-)

The oath omitted "allegiance" to the politicians/government for good
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.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 16, 5:13*pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 16 Sep, 07:41, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > >,
> > > *Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > The Constitution is not the US. The Constitution is what the US is
> > > > > based on.- Ascunde citatul -
>
> > > > The Constitution is the authority of
> > > > the governement. It embodies the Legislature, the
> > > > Executive, the Courts, and their responsibilities
> > > > and their powers. Allegiance to the
> > > > Constitution is allegiance to the government.
> > > > The basic purpose of the Constitution is
> > > > to organize and empower our government.
> > > > Allegiance to the Constitution is allegiance
> > > > to what the Constitutiion says and to what it allows,
> > > > that is, primarily, our government.
>
> > > Nice try. You're saying the Constitution serves the government.
>
> > No, it enables it and legitimizes it.
>
> But it is not the government itself.
>
> > > The trouble with that is what happens when the Constitution stands in
> > > the way of something the government wants to do.
>
> > What happens is that the Supreme Court steps in.
>
> Except when it doesn't.
>
> > Last time I looked, that was part of our government.
>
> Does the military swear alliegence to the Supreme Court?

I wonder why the oath isn't "to defend the Constitution (and the US
government) against all enemies..."

That would solve it for Clyde. ;-)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 16, 4:47*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 15 Sep, 23:13, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Sep 15, 9:59*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On 15 Sep, 21:49, "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
>
> > > > Cheney Misstates Military Oath
>
> > > > David R. Henderson
> > > > Am I the only one who noticed? I hope not. But just in case, let me
> > > > note that Vice President Dick Cheney made a huge misstatement to his
> > > > West Point audience on May 26. I hope that, at a minimum, the West
> > > > Point history majors noticed it. Near the end of his speech at the
> > > > United States Military Academy commencement, Mr. Cheney stated:
>
> > > > "On your first day of Army life, each one of you raised your right
> > > > hand and took an oath. And you will swear again today to defend the
> > > > United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That is your
> > > > vow, that is the business you're in."
>
> > > > Well, not quite. Here is the actual oath that newly minted officers in
> > > > the U.S. Army take:
>
> > > > "I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S.
> > > > Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such
> > > > appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
> > > > defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
> > > > foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
> > > > the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental
> > > > reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully
> > > > discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so
> > > > help me God."
>
> > > > Notice the difference? Mr. Cheney claims that U.S. Army officers vow
> > > > to defend the United States, but as the oath quoted above shows, they
> > > > don't. Instead, they vow to defend the U.S. Constitution. As a former
> > > > student of mine, an officer in the U.S. military, said, "Professor,
> > > > isn't it interesting that our highest obligation is not to protect the
> > > > United States but, instead, is to protect the U.S. Constitution?" Yes,
> > > > it is interesting.
>
> > > >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5946127/
>
> > > > And a note from the far right-wing whackos:
>
> > > > The election of Bill Clinton in 1992 changed everything for those who
> > > > swore the oath, but who were stuck serving under a man who candidly
> > > > "loathed" the military's disciplines and, unavoidably, its middle-
> > > > class conservatism. Clinton's eight-year politicization of the
> > > > military caused a renaissance of officer resistance against popular
> > > > liberal agendas that were inherently at odds with military service.
> > > > Keeping in mind their oath, which, by its very language specifies
> > > > obligations to the Constitution and not necessarily to the sitting
> > > > president, officers either ignored Clinton's directives or vocally
> > > > confronted the damaging effect of his enduring loathing of the
> > > > military.
>
> > > > [i.e. Who's "politicizing" the military here? I am not aware of
> > > > anybody who "ignored Clinton's directives or vocally confronted the
> > > > damaging effect of his enduring loathing of the military. I didn't
> > > > even do that regarding bushie. But I see here the strain of your "you
> > > > couldn't have served because you don't exemplify what us right-wing
> > > > whackos perceive to be attitudes consistant with military service."
> > > > Right-wing whackos are cwazy, LOL!]
>
> > > >http://www.gopusa.com/opinion/re_1230.shtml
>
> > > > No, Clyde, we swear an oath to the Constitution.
>
> > > that 'is' the United States.
>
> > Quibbling noted. It is not an oath to defend the US. It is not an oath
> > to defend the government or the people of the US. It *is* an oath to
> > defend the Constitution of the US.
>
> > The Constitution is not the US. The Constitution is what the US is
> > based on.-
>
> the Constitution empowers the government, if you have no allegiance to
> the
> government of the US, you have no allegieance to'the Constitution that
> empowered it, you are
> just thumbing your nose at it. By refusing
> allegiance to the government, you are saying the Constitution is
> worthless in its main purpiose, which is to give power and legitamicy
> to the government.
> I really don't care whether or not you'have allegiance to the
> government,
> but just don't honk on about having allegiamne to'the Constitutiion,
> you don't.
>
> I don't throw off my allegiance when we have a President I might
> not happen to like, say, such as Clinton. During Clinton's
> tenure, I was still allegiant to the government and to
> his Presidency. I didn't have to like him, or his policies,
> but I was allegiant to the government that he was President of.

You're mixing up politics with the oath of office, which the oath
specifically avoids.

Other countries might swear allegiance to a particular government or
leader. North Korea might, for example. Monarchies might be another
example.

Here:

All recruits to the British Army and Royal Air Force must take an oath
of allegiance upon joining these armed forces, a process known as
"attestation". Those who believe in God use the following words:

“ 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_office#Military_Oath

Can you understand why our founding fathers might not have wanted to
have our military do the same? ;-)

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

> “ 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_office#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.

[Clyde Slick]

On 16 Sep, 18:13, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 16 Sep, 07:41, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > >,
> > > *Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > The Constitution is not the US. The Constitution is what the US is
> > > > > based on.- Ascunde citatul -
>
> > > > The Constitution is the authority of
> > > > the governement. It embodies the Legislature, the
> > > > Executive, the Courts, and their responsibilities
> > > > and their powers. Allegiance to the
> > > > Constitution is allegiance to the government.
> > > > The basic purpose of the Constitution is
> > > > to organize and empower our government.
> > > > Allegiance to the Constitution is allegiance
> > > > to what the Constitutiion says and to what it allows,
> > > > that is, primarily, our government.
>
> > > Nice try. You're saying the Constitution serves the government.
>
> > No, it enables it and legitimizes it.
>
> But it is not the government itself.
>
> > > The trouble with that is what happens when the Constitution stands in
> > > the way of something the government wants to do.
>
> > What happens is that the Supreme Court steps in.
>
> Except when it doesn't.
>
> > Last time I looked, that was part of our government.
>
> Does the military swear alliegence to the Supreme Court?
>

when a military man swears allegiance to the Constitution.
it is swearing
allegiance to our form of government and to
the governmental institutions created by the Constitution.

[Clyde Slick]

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.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 16, 7:36*pm, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> Shhhh! said:
>
> > “ 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_office#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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Uniformed_Services_Oath_of_Office

I wonder how long Clyde will continue his ridiculous argument. LoL.

[Clyde Slick]

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.
You must believe that either the
President, COngress and/or
the Supreme Court lack legitimacy.

[Clyde Slick]

On 16 Sep, 19:21, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Sep 16, 5:05*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 16 Sep, 16:14, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Sep 16, 6:41*am, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> > > > *Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > > The Constitution is not the US. The Constitution is what the US is
> > > > > > based on.
>
> > > > > The Constitution is the authority of
> > > > > the governement. It embodies the Legislature, the
> > > > > Executive, the Courts, and their responsibilities
> > > > > and their powers. Allegiance to the
> > > > > Constitution is allegiance to the government.
> > > > > The basic purpose of the Constitution is
> > > > > to organize and empower our government.
> > > > > Allegiance to the Constitution is allegiance
> > > > > to what the Constitutiion says and to what it allows,
> > > > > that is, primarily, our government.
>
> > > > Nice try. You're saying the Constitution serves the government.
>
> > > > The trouble with that is what happens when the Constitution stands in
> > > > the way of something the government wants to do.
>
> > > Clyde's argument is amazingly 2pid-like.
>
> > > Clyde, if you want to insist that swearing to defend the Constitution
> > > is tantamount to swearing to defend a particular administration, you
> > > go girl.
>
> > If the administration's actions are within the scope
> > of Constitutional empowerment, then it is
> > the government taking such action. If you
> > are not allegiant to the government taking
> > Constitutionally legal actions, than you are not allegiant to the
> > Constitution.
>
> Clyde, don't take my word for it. Go ask people you trust, and who you
> are sure that served. ;-)
>
> The oath omitted "allegiance" to the politicians/government for good
> 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.

[Clyde Slick]

On 16 Sep, 19:22, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Sep 16, 5:13*pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > >,
> > *Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On 16 Sep, 07:41, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> > > > *Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > > The Constitution is not the US. The Constitution is what the US is
> > > > > > based on.- Ascunde citatul -
>
> > > > > The Constitution is the authority of
> > > > > the governement. It embodies the Legislature, the
> > > > > Executive, the Courts, and their responsibilities
> > > > > and their powers. Allegiance to the
> > > > > Constitution is allegiance to the government.
> > > > > The basic purpose of the Constitution is
> > > > > to organize and empower our government.
> > > > > Allegiance to the Constitution is allegiance
> > > > > to what the Constitutiion says and to what it allows,
> > > > > that is, primarily, our government.
>
> > > > Nice try. You're saying the Constitution serves the government.
>
> > > No, it enables it and legitimizes it.
>
> > But it is not the government itself.
>
> > > > The trouble with that is what happens when the Constitution stands in
> > > > the way of something the government wants to do.
>
> > > What happens is that the Supreme Court steps in.
>
> > Except when it doesn't.
>
> > > Last time I looked, that was part of our government.
>
> > Does the military swear alliegence to the Supreme Court?
>
> I wonder why the oath isn't "to defend the Constitution (and the US
> government) against all enemies..."
>
> That would solve it for Clyde. ;-)-



LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not exactly, it would both solve it and bring it to a successful
conclusion!!!!

[Clyde Slick]

On 16 Sep, 19:31, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Sep 16, 4:47*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 15 Sep, 23:13, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Sep 15, 9:59*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > On 15 Sep, 21:49, "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
>
> > > > > Cheney Misstates Military Oath
>
> > > > > David R. Henderson
> > > > > Am I the only one who noticed? I hope not. But just in case, let me
> > > > > note that Vice President Dick Cheney made a huge misstatement to his
> > > > > West Point audience on May 26. I hope that, at a minimum, the West
> > > > > Point history majors noticed it. Near the end of his speech at the
> > > > > United States Military Academy commencement, Mr. Cheney stated:
>
> > > > > "On your first day of Army life, each one of you raised your right
> > > > > hand and took an oath. And you will swear again today to defend the
> > > > > United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That is your
> > > > > vow, that is the business you're in."
>
> > > > > Well, not quite. Here is the actual oath that newly minted officers in
> > > > > the U.S. Army take:
>
> > > > > "I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S.
> > > > > Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such
> > > > > appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
> > > > > defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
> > > > > foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
> > > > > the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental
> > > > > reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully
> > > > > discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so
> > > > > help me God."
>
> > > > > Notice the difference? Mr. Cheney claims that U.S. Army officers vow
> > > > > to defend the United States, but as the oath quoted above shows, they
> > > > > don't. Instead, they vow to defend the U.S. Constitution. As a former
> > > > > student of mine, an officer in the U.S. military, said, "Professor,
> > > > > isn't it interesting that our highest obligation is not to protect the
> > > > > United States but, instead, is to protect the U.S. Constitution?" Yes,
> > > > > it is interesting.
>
> > > > >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5946127/
>
> > > > > And a note from the far right-wing whackos:
>
> > > > > The election of Bill Clinton in 1992 changed everything for those who
> > > > > swore the oath, but who were stuck serving under a man who candidly
> > > > > "loathed" the military's disciplines and, unavoidably, its middle-
> > > > > class conservatism. Clinton's eight-year politicization of the
> > > > > military caused a renaissance of officer resistance against popular
> > > > > liberal agendas that were inherently at odds with military service.
> > > > > Keeping in mind their oath, which, by its very language specifies
> > > > > obligations to the Constitution and not necessarily to the sitting
> > > > > president, officers either ignored Clinton's directives or vocally
> > > > > confronted the damaging effect of his enduring loathing of the
> > > > > military.
>
> > > > > [i.e. Who's "politicizing" the military here? I am not aware of
> > > > > anybody who "ignored Clinton's directives or vocally confronted the
> > > > > damaging effect of his enduring loathing of the military. I didn't
> > > > > even do that regarding bushie. But I see here the strain of your "you
> > > > > couldn't have served because you don't exemplify what us right-wing
> > > > > whackos perceive to be attitudes consistant with military service.."
> > > > > Right-wing whackos are cwazy, LOL!]
>
> > > > >http://www.gopusa.com/opinion/re_1230.shtml
>
> > > > > No, Clyde, we swear an oath to the Constitution.
>
> > > > that 'is' the United States.
>
> > > Quibbling noted. It is not an oath to defend the US. It is not an oath
> > > to defend the government or the people of the US. It *is* an oath to
> > > defend the Constitution of the US.
>
> > > The Constitution is not the US. The Constitution is what the US is
> > > based on.-
>
> > the Constitution empowers the government, if you have no allegiance to
> > the
> > government of the US, you have no allegieance to'the Constitution that
> > empowered it, you are
> > just thumbing your nose at it. By refusing
> > allegiance to the government, you are saying the Constitution is
> > worthless in its main purpiose, which is to give power and legitamicy
> > to the government.
> > I really don't care whether or not you'have allegiance to the
> > government,
> > but just don't honk on about having allegiamne to'the Constitutiion,
> > you don't.
>
> > I don't throw off my allegiance when we have a President I might
> > not happen to like, say, such as Clinton. During Clinton's
> > tenure, I was still allegiant to the government and to
> > his Presidency. I didn't have to like him, or his policies,
> > but I was allegiant to the government that he was President of.
>
> You're mixing up politics with the oath of office, which the oath
> specifically avoids.
>
> Other countries might swear allegiance to a particular government or
> leader. *North Korea might, for example. Monarchies might be another
> example.
>
> Here:
>
> All recruits to the British Army and Royal Air Force must take an oath
> of allegiance upon joining these armed forces, a process known as
> "attestation". Those who believe in God use the following words:
>
> “ 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_office#Military_Oath
>
> Can you understand why our founding fathers might not have wanted to
> have our military do the same? ;-)- Ascunde citatul -
>

The UK has no single constitutional document comparable
to the Constitution of the United States. It is therefore
often said that the country has an "unwritten" or de
facto constitution.

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 our forms of government
and to the instiutuions of govermment, one of
which is the Presidency. So, one is swearing allegiance
to the "Office of the President", among other governmental
institutions, not the the specific personage of the President.

That is quite different than in a Monarchy.

[Clyde Slick]

On 16 Sep, 20:36, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Shhhh! said:
>
> > “ 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_office#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.

I asume that SHHH! includes the drafters of' the Constituion as
among our Founding Fathers, so he is correct in that.

[Clyde Slick]

On 16 Sep, 21:30, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Sep 16, 7:36*pm, George M. Middius >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Shhhh! said:
>
> > > “ 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_office#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_States_Uniformed_Services_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?

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
Clyde Slick > wrote:

> On 16 Sep, 18:13, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> > *Clyde Slick > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 16 Sep, 07:41, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> > > > *Clyde Slick > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > The Constitution is not the US. The Constitution is what the US is
> > > > > > based on.- Ascunde citatul -
> >
> > > > > The Constitution is the authority of
> > > > > the governement. It embodies the Legislature, the
> > > > > Executive, the Courts, and their responsibilities
> > > > > and their powers. Allegiance to the
> > > > > Constitution is allegiance to the government.
> > > > > The basic purpose of the Constitution is
> > > > > to organize and empower our government.
> > > > > Allegiance to the Constitution is allegiance
> > > > > to what the Constitutiion says and to what it allows,
> > > > > that is, primarily, our government.
> >
> > > > Nice try. You're saying the Constitution serves the government.
> >
> > > No, it enables it and legitimizes it.
> >
> > But it is not the government itself.
> >
> > > > The trouble with that is what happens when the Constitution stands in
> > > > the way of something the government wants to do.
> >
> > > What happens is that the Supreme Court steps in.
> >
> > Except when it doesn't.
> >
> > > Last time I looked, that was part of our government.
> >
> > Does the military swear alliegence to the Supreme Court?
> >
>
> when a military man swears allegiance to the Constitution.
> it is swearing
> allegiance to our form of government and to
> the governmental institutions created by the Constitution.

Not in preference to the Constitution itself.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
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.

You see what you want.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

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:
> >
> > > > ³ 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_office#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_States_Uniformed_Services_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

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

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. 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. 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!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

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?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 16, 8:25*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 16 Sep, 18:13, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > >,
> > *Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On 16 Sep, 07:41, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> > > > *Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > > The Constitution is not the US. The Constitution is what the US is
> > > > > > based on.- Ascunde citatul -
>
> > > > > The Constitution is the authority of
> > > > > the governement. It embodies the Legislature, the
> > > > > Executive, the Courts, and their responsibilities
> > > > > and their powers. Allegiance to the
> > > > > Constitution is allegiance to the government.
> > > > > The basic purpose of the Constitution is
> > > > > to organize and empower our government.
> > > > > Allegiance to the Constitution is allegiance
> > > > > to what the Constitutiion says and to what it allows,
> > > > > that is, primarily, our government.
>
> > > > Nice try. You're saying the Constitution serves the government.
>
> > > No, it enables it and legitimizes it.
>
> > But it is not the government itself.
>
> > > > The trouble with that is what happens when the Constitution stands in
> > > > the way of something the government wants to do.
>
> > > What happens is that the Supreme Court steps in.
>
> > Except when it doesn't.
>
> > > Last time I looked, that was part of our government.
>
> > Does the military swear alliegence to the Supreme Court?
>
> when a military man swears allegiance to the Constitution.
> it is swearing
> allegiance to our form of government

If you had stopped here you would have been better off.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

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.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

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?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

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.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

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.

[Clyde Slick]

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:
>
> > > > > ³ 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_office#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_States_Uniformed_Services_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?

[Clyde Slick]

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!

[Clyde Slick]

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,

[Clyde Slick]

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.

[Clyde Slick]

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.

[Clyde Slick]

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..

[Clyde Slick]

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?

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

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?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

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?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

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?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

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.).

Here:

Main Entry: gov·ern·ment
Pronunciation: \ˈgə-vər(n)-mənt, -və-mənt; ˈgə-bəm-ənt, -vəm-\
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: \ˈgə-vərn\
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?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

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:
>
> > > > > > ³ 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_office#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_States_Uniformed_Services_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.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

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_and_Honorable_Artillery_Company_of_Massach usetts

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

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/Government#Types_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?

[MiNe 109]

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:
> >
> > > > > > ³ 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_office#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_States_Uniformed_Services_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

[Clyde Slick]

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.

[Clyde Slick]

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.

[Clyde Slick]

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.

[Clyde Slick]

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?

[Clyde Slick]

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.

[Clyde Slick]

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_and_Honorable_Artillery_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

[Clyde Slick]

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/Government#Types_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.

[Clyde Slick]

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:
>
> > > > > > > ³ 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_office#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_States_Uniformed_Services_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.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

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?

[MiNe 109]

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:
> >
> > > > > > > > ³ 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_office#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_States_Uniformed_Services_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

[UnsteadyKen[_3_]]

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/

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

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!

[Clyde Slick]

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.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

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?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

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.

[MiNe 109]

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

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

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.

[Clyde Slick]

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/creative/lincoln/speeches/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.

[Clyde Slick]

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.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

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/creative/lincoln/speeches/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.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

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".

[Clyde Slick]

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/creative/lincoln/speeches/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 -
>
> - Afiºare text în citat -

[Clyde Slick]

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/creative/lincoln/speeches/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

[Clyde Slick]

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.

[Clyde Slick]

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/creative/lincoln/speeches/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"?
>


Read the Gettysburg address to see what Lincoln said about the
government.
That he hoped it shall not persih from this earth.
He was talking about the US Government as an institution,
hopefully that it would exist in perpetuity,
he was not talking about the people running it at that
moment in time.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 19, 8:47*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 19 Sep, 11:54, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

> > 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

LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 19, 8:47*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> 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.
********************************

> 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

*******************************

It sounds to me like you agree that the oath is to a form of
government and not to the government itself.

Whatever, Clyde: you "win".

[Clyde Slick]

On 20 Sep, 13:41, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Sep 19, 8:47*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:> 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.
>
> ********************************
>
> > 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
>
> *******************************
>
> It sounds to me like you agree that the oath is to a form of
> government and not to the government itself.
>


The government 'itself' are the enatities and institutions of
government.
Let's consider a Department of Labor pool vehicle.
the Secretary of Labor does not own it, a
'form' of governement does not own it,
the entity known as the US Government owns it.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 20, 5:14*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 20 Sep, 13:41, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Sep 19, 8:47*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:> 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.
>
> > ********************************
>
> > > 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
>
> > *******************************
>
> > It sounds to me like you agree that the oath is to a form of
> > government and not to the government itself.
>
> The government 'itself' are the enatities and institutions of
> government.
> Let's consider a Department of Labor pool vehicle.
> the Secretary of Labor does not own it, a
> 'form' of governement does not own it,
> the entity known as the US Government owns it.

So I've sworn an oath to a fleet of Chrysler "K" cars.

I got it, Clyde. We can drop it now. You "win".