[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.

He

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...#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.

[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!

[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!

[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/Governm..._of_government

A form of government is a term that refers to the set of political
institutions by which a government of a state is organized in order to
exert its powers over a Community politics.[1] Synonyms include
"regime type" and "system of government". This definition holds valid
even if the government is unsuccessful in exerting its power.

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

Government equals "people in power" or "political entities in power".
I am not sworn to defend them.

Form of government equals "the type or system of government", not the
government itself. I am sworn to defend the system of government
spelled out in the Constitution.

If you are confusing these two terms and calling them identical, and
if you mean "form of government" when you say "government", then we
agree. If not, then we don't.

Are we done now?

[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/Governm..._of_government

A form of government is a term that refers to the set of political
institutions by which a government of a state is organized in order to
exert its powers over a Community politics.[1] Synonyms include
"regime type" and "system of government". This definition holds valid
even if the government is unsuccessful in exerting its power.

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

Government equals "people in power" or "political entities in power".
I am not sworn to defend them.

Form of government equals "the type or system of government", not the
government itself. I am sworn to defend the system of government
spelled out in the Constitution.

If you are confusing these two terms and calling them identical, and
if you mean "form of government" when you say "government", then we
agree. If not, then we don't.


the Institution of government
not the people who hold office,
but the offices themselves.